100% tevredenheidsgarantie Direct beschikbaar na je betaling Lees online óf als PDF Geen vaste maandelijkse kosten
logo-home
Rdl1008W - Introduction to Family law notes $10.50
In winkelwagen

College aantekeningen

Rdl1008W - Introduction to Family law notes

 0 keer verkocht
  • Vak
  • Instelling

This is a comprehensive and detailed note on Introduction to Family law for Rdl 1008W. Quality stuff!! U'll need it!!

Voorbeeld 2 van de 5  pagina's

  • 20 mei 2024
  • 5
  • 2018/2019
  • College aantekeningen
  • Prof. k. moult
  • Alle colleges
avatar-seller
Introduction to Family Law

Dawood v Minister of Home Affairs
 Links marriage and dignity
 Consortium omnis vitae as crucial part of marriage
o rights and duties arising from marriage, such as love, companionship,
cohabitation, intimacy
 Private and public importance of marriage
o Social institution
o Special, but not exclusively so
 Protection of marriage from unjustified state interference

Children in Family Law

LvH
 Minor parents-to-be
 Father (A) of mother-to-be (M) wanted to prohibit would-be father (F) from
contacting her
 M lived at home with her parents
 When natural guardian fulfilling functions, no room for interference by court
 Question whether A was exercising authority reasonably
 F character of ill-repute; drugs user, admission to psychiatric hospital
 A had been exercising authority reasonably
 Should child being born illegitimate be a factor?
o No, may not happen, and even if contact allowed no guarantee of marriage
between its parents

FS v JJ
 Rights of unmarried fathers
 Best interests of child paramount
o Evidenced in this case by psychologists’ reports
 Importance of mediation in family matters

Grootboom
 Duty of care for child falls on parents

Introduction to Marriage Law

Excell v Douglas
 Requires valid civil marriage
 Must be a joint household for spouses to be able to bind each other contractually for
necessaries
 Duty of support if couples separated
o However, does not apply if one couple is at fault and wants to claim support
 If spouse has provided allowance, cannot have unjustified enrichment claim brought
by third party

Reloomel v Ramsey
 Valid civil marriage
 Joint household

,  Spouses can bind in contract only if items purchased are necessaries
o What constitutes necessaries determined by standard of living
 Spouses cannot forbid purchase of necessaries, not bound in agency
 Even if one spouse temporarily absent, duty still exists

Gumede v President RSA
 Monogamous customary marriages should be deemed to be in community of property
(excluding ANC)
 Retrospective
 S 8(4)(a) of RCMA permitted courts to transfer assets in divorce per s 7(3) of Divorce
Act
o S 7(3) usually only applicable to those out of community of property and
married before MPA, however limitations do not apply in case of customary
marriages (although is this the case too with when legislation came into effect,
or does this still only apply to those married before the accrual system?)
 Women married in terms of customary law always have s 7(3) benefit, common law
not, incongruent with s 9(1) - Heaton

Family Support Duties

Bannatyne v Bannatyne
 Gendered nature of maintenance system
 Economic impact of divorce, husbands tend to leave marriage richer than wives
 Necessity of maintenance to relieve this financial burden


Gammon v McClure
 Spouse liable for unjustified enrichment if third party has supported needy spouse
 Subsists as long as marriage lasts



Management of the Joint Estate

Distillers’ Corp v Modise
 Limits of reasonableness in ascertaining whether party was forbidden to stand surety
 Court found that Distillers’ Corp had been bona fide third party in trusting Modise
 However, criticised by commentators who think Corp should have investigated

Visser v Hull
 In the Visser v Hull case67 Mr Visser ‘sold’ the family home to his cousins. The house
was worth R98 000, but the sale price was only R10 500. The court decided that this
was really a donation68 (of about R87 500). It seemed to the court that a donation of
this value was prejudicial to Mrs Visser’s interests in the joint estate and that the
donation therefore fell within the scope of section 15(8). In terms of section 15(3)(c),
this donation required Mrs Visser’s consent.


Bopape v Moloto

Dit zijn jouw voordelen als je samenvattingen koopt bij Stuvia:

Bewezen kwaliteit door reviews

Bewezen kwaliteit door reviews

Studenten hebben al meer dan 850.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet jij zeker dat je de beste keuze maakt!

In een paar klikken geregeld

In een paar klikken geregeld

Geen gedoe — betaal gewoon eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of je Stuvia-tegoed en je bent klaar. Geen abonnement nodig.

Direct to-the-point

Direct to-the-point

Studenten maken samenvattingen voor studenten. Dat betekent: actuele inhoud waar jij écht wat aan hebt. Geen overbodige details!

Veelgestelde vragen

Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?

Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.

Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?

Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.

Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?

Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper anyiamgeorge19. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.

Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?

Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor $10.50. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.

Is Stuvia te vertrouwen?

4,6 sterren op Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)

Afgelopen 30 dagen zijn er 65821 samenvattingen verkocht

Opgericht in 2010, al 15 jaar dé plek om samenvattingen te kopen

Begin nu gratis

Laatst bekeken door jou


$10.50
  • (0)
In winkelwagen
Toegevoegd