Other
Law of Delict PVL3703
- Course
- Institution
Read the judgment in Bergrivier Municipality v Van Ryn Beck 2019 (4) SA 127 (SCA) and write a discussion of 500-1000 words.
[Show more]
Seller
Follow
gilbertchauke
Reviews received
Content preview
Law of DelictPVL3703
Semester 1 and 2
Assignment 01
Due date: 07 May 2021
Student: Mr. Ndwakhulu Gilbert Chauke
Student no: 32321279
, Question
Read the judgment in Bergrivier Municipality v Van Ryn Beck 2019 (4) SA 127 (SCA)
and write a discussion of 500-1000 words.
In your discussion, you must:
(a) Discuss what the Supreme Court of Appeal decided in respect of the element of
wrongfulness only in Bergrivier Municipality v Van Ryn Beck 2019 (4) SA 127 (SCA).
In other words, we expect you to explain how the Supreme Court of Appeal came to
the conclusion that the Municipality’s conduct was not wrongful.
(b) Compare the court’s decision with that of Neethling and Potgieter on how
wrongfulness should be established. Here we expect you to briefly lay out the manner
in which Neethling and Potgieter recommend that wrongfulness should be established,
particularly in cases of omissions. With regard to the comparison, you must point out
any similarities between the Supreme Court of Appeal’s principles in establishing
wrongfulness and Neethling and Potgieter’s principles in establishing wrongfulness.
You must also point out any marked differences if any.
Answer
(a) In the Bergrivier Municipality v Van Ryn Beck case the Supreme Court of Appeal
(SCA) came to the conclusion that the Municipality’s conduct was not wrongful. The
SCA applied the boni mores test which entailed the ex post facto balancing or
weighing-up of the interests that the defendant promoted by his act against those
which he infringed. The boni mores test is an objective test based on the criterion
of reasonableness. When applying the boni mores principle to determine
wrongfulness, the basic question that needs to be asked is whether, according to
the legal convictions of the community and in light of all the circumstances of the
case, the defendant infringed the interests of the plaintiff in an unreasonable
manner. The SCA in the Bergrivier Municipality v Van Ryn Beck 2019 case weighed
the conflicting interests of the defendant and plaintiff, and the social consequences
of imposing liability in similar instances, in light of all the relevant circumstances and
in view of all pertinent factors in order to decide whether the infringement of the
plaintiff’s interests was reasonable or unreasonable. As such, the Court held that:
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 gilbertchauke. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $5.60. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
67232 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now