key to the study guide - Name

Revocation or limitation
of the capacity
82
Voortrekkerwinkels (Ko-operatief) Bpk v Pretorius. In this case the court
decided that the husband would not be liable if he could show that there
was already an adequate supply of the specific commodity in the house.
The issue of whether a spouse's power to purchase household necessaries
can be revoked or limited is discussed on pages 56±57 of the textbook. It is
clear that when a court revokes the capacity of one spouse to buy
household necessaries the other spouse will no longer be liable for
household necessaries purchased by that spouse.
In respect of revocation you should further note that, on occasion, it has
been stated that one spouse can unilaterally revoke the capacity of the
other spouse. This view is incorrect. Since the capacity to buy household
necessaries is not based on agency but arises ex lege andisanincidentof
marriage, one spouse does not have the power to revoke the capacity of the
other. This is explained at page 57 of your textbook and at pages 95±96 of
your casebook, where the effect of a notice sent to a trader is also
explained. In respect of the notice to the trader you should once again look
at the objective and subjective tests or approaches.
In respect of the defence of provision of adequate funds or an adequate
supply of goods, you should study page 57 of your textbook. There it is
explained that the answer to the question whether provision of adequate
funds or an adequate supply of goods is a defence depends, according to
our case law, on whether the subjective or objective test is applied.
4.3 The Maintenance Act 99 of 1998
Although we indicated at the beginning of this study unit that you only
have to read the discussion of the Maintenance Act 99 of 1998 on pages
58±65, you should, however, study the following information in
respectofthisAct:
. The Maintenance Act expressly provides that it applies in respect of the
legal duty of any person to maintain any other person ``irrespective of
the nature of the relationship between those persons giving rise to that
duty''. Thus the application of the Act clearly extends even to a
contractual duty of support between persons who are not related to
each other by blood or marriage (such as cohabitants).
. The Act provides that the maintenance court may now also make an
order for the payment of maintenance by way of a lump sum, and not
only by way of periodical payments (as was indeed the case in terms of
the old Maintenance Act of 1963).
. In terms of the Act any order made by a maintenance court has the