TUTORIAL/REVISION
Please note:
- That the tutorial/revision question is purely to assist with examination purposes and is therefore not comprehensive.
- The most important aspects of the module content were addressed during lecturers.
- Please constantly refer to your study outline whilst preparing for exam and be able to answer the learning outcomes and problem scenarios therein.
Module 1- Chapters 1-2
Chapter
1: Introduction & History:
This
chapter is mostly theoretical.
·
Students
should be able to differentiate between a source of origin and a authoritative
source;
·
Students
should be able to discuss the development of Family law in South Africa by
referring to the Roman law, Germanic law, Canon law, Roman Dutch law, and more
recent changes to South African law ( eg. 1979 – the fault based ground for
divorce fell away, accrual system was introduced, family advocates office was
established etc.)
·
Students
should be ale to define family law in the wide as well as narrow sense of the
word.
Chapter
2: The engagement:
Theoretical
as well as problem questions may be asked from this chapter.
Case
law: Schnaar v Jansen; Guggenheim v Rosenbaum; Smit v Jacobs, Davel v Swanepoel
Theoretical:
·
Define
engagement and differentiate an engagement contract from an ordinary contract;
·
Discuss
the requirements for a valid engagement;
·
Mention
the circumstances that may warrant the termination of an engagement and discuss
the consequences of the termination of an engagement;
·
Understand
and apply the actions available for a damages claim based on breach of promise;
·
Differentiate
between sponsalitia largitas and arrbae sponsalitiae;
·
Briefly
discuss the claim for satisfaction and damages based on seduction.
Problem
questions:
·
John
and Marry have been dating for a while. John decides to ask Mary to marry him.
John is however based in London whilst Mary is
residing in Durban London
One morning very early John unexpectedly
contacts Bob and asks him to propose to Mary on his behalf. Before Bob could
reply John terminates the call. Mary,
lying in bed next to Bob, asks Bob what John wanted. Whilst Bob repeats what
John wanted, Mary bursts out crying and says “I accept I will marry you”.
1. Based on the requirements for a valid engagement is the engagement
between John and Mary valid? Motivate your answer.
Answer:
Students should define engagement and
discuss the requirements for a valid engagement. Students should be able to
identify that there is an error in persona as well as an error in negotio.
Students should be able to discuss same.
2. If Bob did in fact propose to
Mary and Mary later discover that Bob had reassignment surgery, would Mary be
able to cancel the engagement on the basis of justa causa?
Answer:
Students should be able to discuss justa
causa.
3. If Mary knew about Bob’s reassignment
surgery and she cancels the engagement a week before the wedding date for no
material reason, what remedies are available to Bob?
Answer:
Students should be able to discuss
breach of promise as well as the separate actions that can be instituted to
reclaim patrimonial expenses and non-patrimonial expenses. Students should know
that damages under these circumstances are awarded Sui genesis and furthermore
be able to discuss how damages are calculated by referring to positive and
negative interest. Reference should be made to Guggenheim v Rosenbaum
case. With regard to non-patrimonial
damages students should know that animus inuria (intention to infringe) is a
requirement and be able to refer to Smit v Jacobs’s case. Lastly students
should be able to discuss the position with regard to the return of engagement
gifts under the circumstances.
Module 2 – Chapter 3
Theoretical
as well as problem questions may be asked from this chapter.
Case
law: Smith v Smith; Martens v Martens; Fourie v Minister of Home Affairs; Ex
parte Dow;
Jack
and Jill got married. Jack honestly believed that he was divorced from his
previous wife, but was not. Will the said marriage to Jill be void?
X, a
major man, marries Y, a minor. Y’s parents refuse to consent to the marriage
and X and Y decides to get marry without their consent and enter into a ANC
excluding the accrual system. What will the position be with regard to the
patrimonial consequences of the marriage if it is not dissolved?
Module 3- Chapters 4&5
Theoretical
as well as problem questions may be asked from this module.
Chapter 4:
Case
law: Solomons v Abrams; van Niekerk v
van Niekkerk; Venter v Venter
X
and Y enter into a marriage without realizing that they are related to each
other within the prohibited degrees of consanguinity. Discuss the nature and
patrimonial consequences of the marriage.
Chapter 5:
Theoretical
as well as problem questions may be asked from this module.
Case
law: Grobbelaar v Havenga; Reyneke v Reyneke; Reloomel v Ramsay
If A
and B were married out of community of property in 1975 and the spouses made
donations to each other in December 1982, were the donations made in 1982 valid
at that stage, and today?
Module 4: Chapter 6
Theoretical
as well as problem questions may be asked from this module.
Case
law: Distillers Corporation Ltd v Modise; Amalgamated Bank of SA Bpk v
Lydenburg passasiersdienste.
Mrs
A and Mr B were married in community of property on 9 December 1993. Mr B wants
to conclude the following transactions:
-
He
register a bond over the property in
order to finance renovations;
-
He
wants to institute legal proceedings against the previous home owners;
-
He
wants to donate the parties piano; to his sister;
-
He
wants to alienate the parties life insurance policies;
-
What
consent does Mr B require in each of the transactions?
-
What
can Mr B do if Mrs A withholds her consent?
Module 5: Chapter 7
Theoretical
as well as problem questions may be asked from this module.
Can
a person have an ANC if they are married in community of property?
If A
and B entered into a ANC before their marriage, but the lawyer died before
registering the ANC, is the ANC valid between the parties and against 3rd
parties?
What
can the parties do to make the contract valid against 3rd parties?
On
14 January 1989 A and B were married by ANC. They did not exclude the accrual
system. At the time of entering into the marriage A had a study loan of
R10 000 while B owned a flat worth R40 000. During the marriage A
received R10 000 satisfaction. A’s estate is now worth R200 000 and
B’s estate is worth R100 000. How will the spouse’s assets be divided upon
dissolution of the marriage?
Module 6 –Chapters 8
Theoretical
as well as problem questions may be asked from this module.
Case
law: Ex parte Oosthuizen; Honey v Honey; Ex parte Kros; Ex parte Saunders et
Uxor; Ex parte Engelbrecht
Mr
and Mrs X got married in community of property. He wants to start a new
business but dies not want to jeopardize the joint estate. Advise Mr X whether
he can change the marital regime and the procedure involved.
Module 7 – Chapters 9-11
Theoretical
as well as problem questions may be asked from this module.
Case
law: Schwartz v Schwartz; Coetzee v Coetzee; Swaer v Swart; Amar v Amar; Levy v
Levy; Maharaj v Maharaj; Wijker v Wijker; Beaumont v Beaumont; Katz v Katz;
Kritzinger v Kritzinger
Mr
and Mrs X entered into a civil marriage in 1980 in community of property and a
son was born in 1982. Mr X died. Mrs X joint estate is worth R50 000. In
terms of Mr X’s will Mrs X inherit R5000 and the balance goes to their son. Mrs
X is unable to work; she fears she will be unable to maintain herself. Mrs X
wants to know whether she can claim maintenance from Mr X estate.
Mr
and Mrs X were married in 1970 out of community of property and profit and
loss. Mrs X has been working and paid her income into Mr X’s account. Mr x wants to divorce Mrs X. Mrs X estate is
worth R10 000 whilst Mr X’s estate is worth R500 000. Mr X offers her R30 000 is settlement.
Advise Mrs X with reference to sections 7(3)-(6) of the Divorce Act.
Module 8: Chapters 12, 13 & 21
Theoretical
as well as problem questions may be asked from this module.
Case
law: Grasso v Grasso; Zwiegelaar v Zwiegelaar;
Qoza v Qoza; Havenga v Havenga;
Kroon v Kroon
Refer
to questions related to this module in LCLS 102.
Module 9: Chapters 14-15
Theoretical
as well as problem questions may be asked from this module.
Case
law: McCall v McCall; van Vuuren v van Vuuren; Krugel v Krugel; van der Linde v
van der Linde; V v V; Fraser case.
Module 10: Chapters 16-20
Theoretical
as well as problem questions may be asked from this module.
Case
law: Amod v Multilateral Motor Vehicle Accident Fund; Fourie v Minister of Home
Affairs.
Module 11: Chapter 22-23
Case
law: Fraser case;
Mr X
has an extra marital son, Z, who is currently 3 years old. Mr. X wishes to have a relationship with Z
and wishes to know from you whether he has parental rights and responsibilities
over Z. refer him to the change in recent legislation in this regard.
Module 12: Chapters 24
Case
law: Motan v Joosub; Heystek v Heystek
P 46, 51, 63, 71,102,
No comments:
Post a Comment