Business Law South Africa
- Submitted by: Kearinashley
- Views: 289
- Category: Other
- Date Submitted: 03/04/2014 03:10 AM
- Pages: 5
- Report this Essay
Contents table | Page |
Question 1 | 2 |
Question 2 | 2,3 |
Question 3 | 3 |
Question 4 | 4 |
Question 5 | 4 |
References | 5 |
Question 1
The constitution is vital and the absolute law of the country, and any statue that clashes with the constitution, whether declared before or after the constitution, can be stated invalid. This is because we do not follow the laws of ‘The Interpretation ACT 33 of 1957’ anymore.
When understanding the bill of rights a court must endorse the values that inspire an open democratic society (this is stated in section 39(1)).
Courts need to look beyond the words of a certain statue when attempting to determine its purposefulness and significance. The principles and standards on which the Constitution is founded must now be taken into account.
Section 39(2) then states that, when deciphering any legislation, a court must endorse the spirit, purport and substances of the bill of rights (which was implemented in 1996.)
In addition section 233 states that, when understanding any legislation, each court must favour any rational interpretation that is constant with international law above any substitute and unreliable interpretation.
Therefore one can say that the court needs to interpret legislation meaningfully with the correct thought trail whilst following the principles prescribed by the constitution and this may not conflict with the Bill of Rights.
(Havenga, 2013)
Question 2
2.1
A valid contract will only arise if all requirements are met. These being:
Consensus
Capacity
Legally possible
Physically possible
Formalities
In the case of the dogfight, which can be seen as a gambling contract as the one party undertakes to render performance to another in an uncertain future event, which is dependant on chance or luck. The contract is not legally possible as it is contrary to public policy.
Therefore there is a lapse in the contract, as the requirement ‘legally possible’ has not been met.
No valid agreement was...
Question 1 | 2 |
Question 2 | 2,3 |
Question 3 | 3 |
Question 4 | 4 |
Question 5 | 4 |
References | 5 |
Question 1
The constitution is vital and the absolute law of the country, and any statue that clashes with the constitution, whether declared before or after the constitution, can be stated invalid. This is because we do not follow the laws of ‘The Interpretation ACT 33 of 1957’ anymore.
When understanding the bill of rights a court must endorse the values that inspire an open democratic society (this is stated in section 39(1)).
Courts need to look beyond the words of a certain statue when attempting to determine its purposefulness and significance. The principles and standards on which the Constitution is founded must now be taken into account.
Section 39(2) then states that, when deciphering any legislation, a court must endorse the spirit, purport and substances of the bill of rights (which was implemented in 1996.)
In addition section 233 states that, when understanding any legislation, each court must favour any rational interpretation that is constant with international law above any substitute and unreliable interpretation.
Therefore one can say that the court needs to interpret legislation meaningfully with the correct thought trail whilst following the principles prescribed by the constitution and this may not conflict with the Bill of Rights.
(Havenga, 2013)
Question 2
2.1
A valid contract will only arise if all requirements are met. These being:
Consensus
Capacity
Legally possible
Physically possible
Formalities
In the case of the dogfight, which can be seen as a gambling contract as the one party undertakes to render performance to another in an uncertain future event, which is dependant on chance or luck. The contract is not legally possible as it is contrary to public policy.
Therefore there is a lapse in the contract, as the requirement ‘legally possible’ has not been met.
No valid agreement was...