25.04.2013 Views

key to the study guide - Name

key to the study guide - Name

key to the study guide - Name

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

ACTIVITY<br />

This activity tests your understanding of <strong>the</strong> prescribed case Schnaar v<br />

Jansen. Study <strong>the</strong> sections on pages 8±9 of your prescribed textbook, as<br />

well as pages 7±9 of your prescribed casebook where this case is discussed<br />

and <strong>the</strong>n answer <strong>the</strong> following questions:<br />

(1) Which of <strong>the</strong> legal requirements for an engagement formed <strong>the</strong> basis<br />

of <strong>the</strong> problem in this case?<br />

(2) What are <strong>the</strong> facts of this case?<br />

(3) Which problem did <strong>the</strong> court have <strong>to</strong> attend <strong>to</strong>, in o<strong>the</strong>r words what<br />

was <strong>the</strong> legal question in this case?<br />

(4) When should this case not be followed as authority?<br />

(5) Why, according <strong>to</strong> Van den Heever, is this decision wrong?<br />

FEEDBACK<br />

(1) Consensus.<br />

(2) The plaintiff was engaged <strong>to</strong> <strong>the</strong> defendant. The defendant repudiated<br />

<strong>the</strong> engagement after finding out that one of <strong>the</strong> plaintiff's uncles had<br />

murdered his wife, that ano<strong>the</strong>r uncle had entered in<strong>to</strong> a mixed<br />

marriage and that her bro<strong>the</strong>r had served a prison sentence for <strong>the</strong>ft.<br />

The plaintiff <strong>the</strong>n sued <strong>the</strong> defendant for breach of promise.<br />

(3) The court had <strong>to</strong> decide whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong>se circumstances (<strong>the</strong> nondisclosure<br />

of certain facts) justified <strong>the</strong> unilateral repudiation of <strong>the</strong><br />

engagement.<br />

(4) If <strong>the</strong> premise is accepted that any ground which in <strong>the</strong> light of human<br />

experience would make <strong>the</strong> prospective marriage unhappy, constitutes<br />

a good cause for <strong>the</strong> unilateral repudiation of <strong>the</strong> engagement, Schnaar<br />

v Jansen should not be followed.<br />

(5) According <strong>to</strong> Van den Heever <strong>the</strong> decision in Schnaar v Jansen is<br />

incorrect, as: ``An engagement <strong>to</strong> marry is a contract of uberrimae fidei<br />

[that is, of <strong>the</strong> utmost good faith] and a party with a skele<strong>to</strong>n in his<br />

cupboard is obliged <strong>to</strong> disclose it.''<br />

Capacity<strong>to</strong>act The discussion of capacity <strong>to</strong> act on pages 9±10 of <strong>the</strong> textbook deals<br />

mainly with <strong>the</strong> permission a minor has <strong>to</strong> obtain from his or her parents<br />

in order <strong>to</strong> become engaged. Lastly, your textbook indicates that persons<br />

who do not have <strong>the</strong> capacity <strong>to</strong> act due <strong>to</strong> mental illness cannot become<br />

engaged while incapable of acting.<br />

30<br />

ACTIVITY<br />

Summarise <strong>the</strong> rules concerning <strong>the</strong> consent that is needed when a minor<br />

wants <strong>to</strong> conclude a contract of engagement in <strong>the</strong> following instances:<br />

(1) where both parents of <strong>the</strong> minor are alive

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!