• Login
    View Item 
    •   NWU-IR Home
    • North-West University Journals
    • PER: Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal
    • PER: 2000 Volume 3 No 2
    • View Item
    •   NWU-IR Home
    • North-West University Journals
    • PER: Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal
    • PER: 2000 Volume 3 No 2
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Oordrag van eiendomsreg en die vulgêre reg in die Wes-Romeinse ryk

    Thumbnail
    View/Open
    2000x2xschu_art.pdf (129.7Kb)
    Date
    2000
    Author
    Schutte, P J W
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    Abstract
    It is generally accepted that an abstract system is applied in South Africa with regard to the transfer of ownership. It is a characteristic of the abstract system that the different legal acts which form part of the process, namely the obligatory agreement, delivery of the thing concerned or registration, and the real agreement are separated from each other and that each has its own requirements. However, there is no certainty about the question as to whether or not this distinction stems from Roman law. The purpose of this article is to ascertain whether the distinction between the different legal acts existed in the vulgar law. It appears that the legal position in the vulgar law differs from South African law in that no distinction between the obligatory agreement and delivery of the thing existed. The conclusion of the sale, payment of the purchase price and the delivery of the merx took place simultaneously. It was considered to be one single act which also transferred ownership from one person to another. It furthermore appears that the intention of the parties to transfer ownership played a very important role. Yet, it was only the intention that existed at the time when the obligatory agreement was entered into, that mattered. Ownership did not pass by virtue of a separate meeting of the minds which could be abstracted from the obligatory agreement. Although certain formal requirements, the purpose of which were to enable the state to collect taxes, had been introduced in the vulgar law, writing and registration had not been regarded as formal requirements for the transfer of ownership in immovable property. Yet, the practice had been to draw written documents relating to the contract of sale, and to register them in municipal registers. This form of registration, however, is not tantamount to registration in the Deeds Registry. The conclusion is that an independent real agreement, which could be abstracted from the obligatory agreement was unknown to the vulgar law. There was no clear-cut distinction between the different legal acts such as that existing in South African law at present.
    URI
    http://hdl.handle.net/10394/1983
    Collections
    • PER: 2000 Volume 3 No 2 [3]

    Copyright © North-West University
    Contact Us | Send Feedback
    Theme by 
    Atmire NV
     

     

    Browse

    All of NWU-IR Communities & CollectionsBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsAdvisor/SupervisorThesis TypeThis CollectionBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsAdvisor/SupervisorThesis Type

    My Account

    LoginRegister

    Copyright © North-West University
    Contact Us | Send Feedback
    Theme by 
    Atmire NV