The reclassification of the parol evidence rule and further development of the integration rule in the South African law of contract

In hierdie artikel word die moontlikheid van die herklassifisering van die ekstrinsieke-getuienis-reël, of die moontlike ontwikkeling van die reël deur die Suid-Afrikaanse howe op een lyn met die ontwikkeling daarvan in die Engelse reg, ondersoek. In die eerste gedeelte van die artikel word daar derhalwe gefokus op die moontlikheid van die herklassifisering van die ekstrinsieke-getuienis-reël as synde deel van die materiële of substantiewe reg in teenstelling met die huidige, duidelik verkeerde klassifisering van die reël as deel van die Suid-Afrikaanse bewysreg. Daar word aangevoer dat die ekstrinsieke-getuienis-reël onbekend was aan die Romeins-Hollandse reg en dat die herklassifisering van die reël noodwendig sal meebring dat die Romeins-Hollandse reg, in teenstelling met die Engelse reg, gevolg sal word by die beoordeling van die aanbieding van ekstrinsieke getuienis buite om 'n skriftelike kontrak. In die tweede gedeelte van die artikel word daar op 'n tweede moontlikheid gefokus, naamlik die aanpassing van die integrasiereël op een lyn met die moderne toepassing van die reël in die Engelse reg. Daar word aangevoer dat die integrasiereël in die Engelse reg sodanig ontwikkel het sedert 30 Mei 1961 dat die essensie van die reël vir alle praktiese doeleindes in so 'n mate afgewater is dat dit tans slegs oor simboliese waarde beskik. Hierdie moderne benadering van die Engelse reg staan dan ook in skrille kontras met die huidige toepassing van die reël in die Suid-Afrikaanse kontraktereg. Die gevolgtrekking word egter gemaak dat die beginsels van regsekerheid en kontinuïteit, asook die gedagtegang dat, vir sover dit nie deur wetgewing gereël word nie, ons bewysreg "bevries" is in die gedaante wat die Engelse bewysreg op 30 Mei 1961 aangeneem het, in die pad sal staan van 'n herklassifisering van die reël of 'n soortgelyke ontwikkeling in die Suid-Afrikaanse reg aan dié wat plaasgevind het in die Engelse reg. Dit wil derhalwe lyk of wetgewing die enigste werkbare oplossing bied om die ekstrinsieke-getuienis-reël, en meer spesifiek die integrasiereël, af te skaf of te aan te pas in die Suid-Afrikaanse kontraktereg.The parol evidence rule represents one of the most problematic legal doctrines in the South African law of evidence. This rule consists of two different components. The first component is known as the integration rule and essentially entails that where an agreement has been reduced to writing, no extrinsic evidence of any prior or collateral agreement may be given to contradict, alter, add to or vary the written terms of the written contract. The second component is known as the interpretation rule, which entails that when the terms of a written contract are clear and unambiguous no evidence may be given to alter such plain meaning. Both rules originated in England and have been distributed from there to the different common law countries as well as South Africa. In the past there were several proponents that contended for the complete abolition of the parol evidence rule, or at least the component referred to in this article as the integration rule. In 1998 an extensive report was brought out by the South African law commission wherein certain recommendations were made to the minister of justice pertaining to, inter alia, the parol evidence rule, which essentially entailed that the rule should be abolished. But the recommendations by the law commission apparently died a slow death and there has been no attempt since to abolish or modify the rule in the South African legal system. If it is clear that the rule should be abolished or modified, the question, of course, arises in what way this should be done. Legislation seems to be the logical solution. Legislation is, however, a drastic step which should serve only as a last resort and other, less drastic methods should first be considered. This article therefore focuses on the possibility of the reclassification of the parol evidence rule or the possible development of the integration rule by the South African courts in accordance with the development thereof in the English law. The first part of the article focuses on the possibility of the reclassification of the parol evidence rule as part of material or substantive law, in contrast with the current, clearly incorrect classification of the rule as part of the South African law of evidence. The position had always been, and still is, that South African material or substantive law (in as far as it had not been amended by legislation), is based on Roman-Dutch law, but that South African formal or procedural law, including the law of evidence, is based on English law. The South African courts had, as far back as the early 20th century, already classified the parol evidence rule as part of formal or procedural law and therefore held that the application of the rule was governed by English law. There seems to be general consensus, however, between writers and courts alike that the parol evidence rule actually forms part of material or substantive law and not formal or procedural law. A reclassification by the South African courts of the parol evidence rule as part of material law would, therefore, automatically bring about the situation where Roman-Dutch law, as opposed to English law, would govern the presentation of extrinsic evidence apart from a written agreement. It is submitted that the parol evidence rule was unknown to Roman-Dutch law and that the reclassification of the rule would therefore result in the abolition of the rule and the situation where the presentation of any extrinsic evidence would be allowed in order to ascertain the true intention of the parties. The conclusion will, however, be made that the principles of legal certainty and continuity would in all probability prevent a reclassification of the parol evidence rule by the South African courts. The second part of the article focuses on a second possibility, namely the modification of the integration rule in line with the modern application of the rule in English law. At first glance it seems as if there is no real difference between the current application of the integration rule in the South African and English legal systems. Both legal systems recognise that extrinsic evidence of a prior or collateral agreement may be adduced where there hasn’t been a total integration of the parties’ agreement in the written contract. The South African courts also recognise, to an extent, the English doctrine of the collateral agreement. There is however one very important difference between the two legal systems. The South African courts will allow only the presentation of extrinsic evidence (where of course the existence of a collateral agreement or collateral agreement which is not integrated in the written contract can be proven), where this separate agreement is not in contradiction with the terms of the written agreement. But the English courts do admit this evidence, even though it may contradict the terms of the written agreement. It is therefore submitted that the integration rule developed in such a way in English law since 30 May 1961 that the essence of the rule has been watered down to such an extent that it has currently, for all practical purposes, only symbolic value. This modern approach of English law stands in stark contrast to the current application of the rule in the South African law of contract. The conclusion is, however, once again made that the principles of legal certainty and continuity, as well as the train of thought that, in so far as it is not governed by legislation, South African law of evidence is “frozen” in the guise which English law of evidence assumed on 30 May 1961, will stand solidly in the way of a similar development in South African law to what took place in the English law. It therefore seems that legislation would be the only workable solution to abolish or modify the parol evidence rule, and more specifically the integration rule, in the South African law of contracthttp://www.litnet.co.za/cgi-bin/giga.cgi?cmd=cause_dir_news&cat=201&cause_id=1270am2013ai201

The interpretation rule in the South African law of contract (Part 1)

Die ekstrinsieke getuienis-reël in die Suid-Afrikaanse kontraktereg bestaan uit twee verskillende onderafdelings. Die een onderafdeling handel met die mate waarin ’n skriftelike kontrak as die enigste uiteensetting van sy bedinge (“sole memorial of its terms”) beskou kan word, waarna daar in hierdie artikel as die “integrasiereël” verwys word. Nou verwant aan die integrasiereël is die sogenaamde “interpretasiereël”. Die eng definisie van hierdie reël bepaal dat geen getuienis aangebied mag word om die duidelike en ondubbelsinnige betekenis van ’n ooreenkoms, hetsy mondeling of skriftelik, te verander nie. Daar is egter ook ’n wyer definisie wat aan die interpretasiereël toegedig kan word, naamlik dat dit bepaal wanneer en tot watter mate ekstrinsieke getuienis aangewend mag word om die bewoording van ’n kontrak te verduidelik of te verander. In die voorafgaande aantal dekades of so het daar ’n ontwikkeling plaasgevind in die toepassing van die interpretasiereël in die Suid- Afrikaanse kontraktereg vanaf ’n streng formalistiese tekstuele benadering tot en met ’n meer liberale kontekstuele benadering op grond waarvan meer ekstrinsieke getuienis toelaatbaar is om die skriftelike kontrak van die partye uit te lê. In die eerste deel van hierdie artikel sal die subjektiewe en objektiewe benaderings tot uitleg gekontrasteer word en sal daar ’n kortlikse bespreking wees van die geskiedkundige agtergrond van die interpretasiereël. Daar sal vervolgens ’n kritiese analise van die ontwikkeling, en die huidige toepassing van die interpretasiereël in die Suid-Afrikaanse kontraktereg plaasvind.The parol evidence rule in the South African law of contract consists of two different subrules. The one subrule deals with the extent to which a written contract may be regarded as the sole memorial of its terms and will be referred to as the “integration rule” in this article. Closely related to the integration rule is the socalled “interpretation rule”. The narrow definition of this rule entails that no evidence may be adduced to alter the clear and unambigious meaning of a written or verbal agreement. There is, however, also a wider definition that may be attributed to the interpretation rule, namely that it entails when and to what extent extrinsic evidence may be adduced to explain or alter the wording of a contract. In the past decades, there has been a development in the application of the interpretation rule in the South African law of contract from a strict formalistic textual approach to a more liberal contextual approach in terms of which more extrinsic evidence is allowed in order to interpret the written contract between the parties. In the first part of this article, the subjective and objective approaches to interpretation will be contrasted and the historical background of the interpretation rule will be briefly discussed. There will also be a critical analysis of the development and current application of the interpretation rule in the South African law of contract.http://reference.sabinet.co.za/sa_epublication/juridicam2016Procedural La

Moontlike regshervorming van die integrasiereël in die Suid-Afrikaanse kontraktereg deur middel van die leerstuk van rektifikasie

Die integrasiereël het nog altyd 'n integrale deel uitgemaak van die Suid-Afrikaanse kontraktereg waar die toelaatbaarheid van die aanbieding van ekstrinsieke getuienis van voorafgaande of kollaterale ooreenkomste ter sprake gekom het. In 1998 het die Suid-Afrikaanse Regskommissie 'n omvattende verslag voorgelê waarin sekere aanbevelings aan die Minister van Justisie voorgelê is ten aansien van, onder andere, die toepassing van die integrasiereël in die Suid-Afrikaanse kontraktereg. Die Regskommissie was van mening dat die nadele verbonde aan die integrasiereël die voordele van regsekerheid en finaliteit oorskry en het aanbeveel dat die reël afgeskaf word en dat meer subjektiewe getuienis toegelaat word ten einde die werklike bedoeling van die partye vas te stel. Dit blyk egter dat die aanbevelings van die Regskommissie intussen 'n stadige dood gesterf het en daar is sedertdien nie weer 'n poging aangewend om die integrasiereël in die Suid-Afrikaanse kontraktereg af te skaf of aan te pas nie.http://www.puk.ac.za/fakulteite/regte/per/index.htmlam201

Regsteoretiese grondslag van die integrasiereël in die Suid-Afrikaanse kontraktereg

This article focuses on an extensive critical analysis of the legal-theoretical basis of the parol evidence rule in the South African law of contract. Certain conclusions will be made from such an analysis in terms of which it will be argued that the parol evidence rule qualifies as a legal rule and that it can therefore be validly abolished or modified by the legislature.http://www.journals.co.za/ej/ejour_obiter.htm

Furnishing security for costs by an incola company - at last some legal certainty or more confusion? Boost Sports Africa (Pty) Ltd v South African Breweries (Pty) Ltd (SCA)

In the South African law of civil procedure, the practice of requesting a plaintiff to furnish security for costs was limited initially to a foreign peregrinus (non-resident) plaintiff who did not own any immovable property in South Africa. Over the years, the scope of this rule has been extended, and some of the provisions regarding a request for security for costs were enacted in legislation. One such provision was s 13 of the former Companies Act 61 of 1973, which stated that where an incola (local) company or body corporate sued as a plaintiff or applicant, a court could, in its discretion, order such a company or body corporate to furnish security for the defendant’s costs in certain circumstances. This section was not re-enacted in the Companies Act 71 of 2008. This omission resulted in several conflicting court decisions regarding the furnishing of security for costs by an incola plaintiff company.http://www.journals.co.za/content/journal/ju_saljam2018Procedural LawProcedural La

Integrasiereel in die Suid-Afrikaanse kontraktereg

This article is aimed at a detailed critical analysis of the basis of the integration rule in light of the current approaches to contractual liability in the South African law of contract. In light of this it will be argued that the parol evidence rule does not fit into any of the current contractual liability approaches of the South African law of contract and that, by reason of this alone, the continued recognition thereof should be seriously questioned.http://www.jutalaw.co.za/catalogue/itemdisplay.jsp?item_id=360

The toxicity of some dipping fluids containing arsenic and sulphur

1. Experiments to determine the toxic doses of some dipping fluids containing arsenic and sulphur are described. 2. It appears that in all the more common forms of arsenical preparations, which are soluble in water, the m.l.d. for rabbits can be calculated on the basis of approximately 0•014 gm. of As₂0₃ per Kg. of body-weight. Sheep, cattle and horses are more susceptible than rabbits to arsenic. 3. The m.l.d. of diluted (dipping-strength concentration) Capex Lime Sulphur Dip for rabbits is approximately 7.5 c.c. per Kg. of body-weight and for sheep approximately 15 to 20 c.c. per Kg. of body -weight. 4. In dipping-strength concentration Tarzan Lime Sulphur Dip and Nelson's Polysulphide Dip possess approximately the same degree of toxicity as Capex Lime Sulphur Dip.The articles have been scanned in colour with a HP Scanjet 5590; 300dpi. Adobe Acrobat XI Pro was used to OCR the text and also for the merging and conversion to the final presentation PDF-format.Includes bibliographical referencesab201

Aanval op die grondwetlikheid van die voorlopige vonnisprosedure - Twee Jonge Gezellen (Pty) Ltd v Land and Agricultural Development Bank

No abstract available.http://www.lexisnexis.co.z

Vryheid van arres vir die buitelandse skuldenaar : ’n jurisdiksionele perspektief

Die gemeenregtelike prosedure ten opsigte van die arres van ’n peregrinus verweerder om jurisdiksie te vestig of te bevestig, is ongrondwetlik verklaar in Bid Industrial Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Strang. In hierdie artikel word ’n oorsig van die geskiedenis, algemene beginsels en ontwikkeling van die prosedure gegee met die oog daarop om ’n kritiese ontleding te maak van die praktyk wat in Bid Industrial Holdings in die plek van die prosedure aanvaar is. Daar word aan die hand gedoen dat dié praktyk nie voldoende is nie en deur ’n ander prosedure vervang behoort te word. Verskillende prosedures word oorweeg. Ten slotte word aanbeveel dat die nuwe prosedure by wyse van ’n wysiging aan die Wet op die Hooggeregshof ingevoer behoort te word.http://www.lexisnexis.co.zaam2013ai201

Domsiekte or pregnancy disease in sheep. II

Undoubted cases of Domsiekte have been produced by suddenly cutting the ration of good conditioned heavily pregnant ewes. An identical condition has been set up in non-pregnant ewes but a much longer period on the poor diet was necessary than in the pregnant ewes. Details of the diets, loss of weight of the animal, clinical symptoms, chemical analysis of the blood and urine, pathological changes and blood changes are recorded. There is no doubt that the Domsiekte produced is identical with the "Pregnancy Disease" reported from other countries.The articles have been scanned in colour with a HP Scanjet 5590; 300dpi. Adobe Acrobat XI Pro was used to OCR the text and also for the merging and conversion to the final presentation PDF-format