Summary
Summary 2ND SEMESTER CASE SUMMARIES - Law Of Persons And Family (PVL1008H)
- Course
- Institution
- Book
2ND SEMESTER CASE SUMMARIES FOR PVL1008H. I GOT 90% ON THE FINAL EXAM WITH THESE SUMMARIES.
[Show more]
Connected book
Book Title:
Author(s):
- Edition:
- ISBN:
- Edition:
More summaries for
-
Law of Property and Succession
-
Capacity, Status and Factors
-
Defining Words and Concepts (Law of Persons)
2 reviews
By: tsepangteele1 • 1 year ago
Terrible notes & repetition of summaries
By: christopherjohnston • 1 year ago
Seller
Follow
studentnoteseller
Reviews received
Content preview
Case SummariesFamily Law (Law of Persons and Family)
PVL1008H
Lecturer: I Ahmed
, Case Summaries – LPF – Family Law – PVL1008H
Case Name: Bopape v Moloto
Neutral Citation: 2000 (1) SA 383 (T)
Court: Transvaal Provincial Division of the High Court
Textbook Pg: 283, 298, 302-3, 306-7, 323
FACTS
• This case concerned a couple who were married in
community of property.
• During the marriage, Mr Bopape had an affair with Ms
Moloto, and he gave her several cheques (with a total value
of about R200 000) without his wife’s knowledge or consent.
• The court decided that this donation that might prejudice
Mrs Bopape’s interest in the joint estate, and therefore fell
within the scope of sec. 15(3)(c). Thus Mr Bopape could not
make this donation without his wife’s consent.
CONMIXTIO
• Mr Bopape could not actively transfer ownership in the
money to Ms Moloto.
• However, Ms Moloto did become owner of the money
through conmixtio (mixing) when the money became mixed
up with Ms Moloto’s other money in her bank account.
2
, Case Summaries – LPF – Family Law – PVL1008H
DELICTUAL REMEDY
• The court ordered Ms Moloto to return the money that Mr
Bopape gave her behind his wife’s back.
• This appear to have been an award of delictual damages,
but the court did not make this explicit and did not identify
the delictual action employed.
PROTECTING SPOUSES WHEN SPOUSAL CONSENT IS ‘DEEMED’ (VIOLATED)
SECTION 15(9)(B)
• The donation of R200K violated section 15(3)(c) – no consent.
• Mr and Mrs Bopape sued Ms Moloto for return of the money.
• Ms Moloto argued that Mrs Bopape could not bring a claim
against her and recover the money – instead, Mrs Bopape
should use the sec. 15(9)(b) adjustment remedy against her
husband.
• The court did not agree with this. It held that a non-
consenting spouse is not limited to the sec. 15(9)(b) remedy.
• The spouses can recover the donation directly from the third
party.
Case Name: Bannatyne v Bannatyne
Neutral Citation: 2003 (2) SA 363 (CC)
Court: Constitutional Court
Textbook Pg: 343, 344, 366
3
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller studentnoteseller. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $5.74. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
75323 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now