dc.contributor.author | Eiselen, Sieg | |
dc.contributor.author | Chitimira, Howard | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2017-05-16T09:58:38Z | |
dc.date.available | 2017-05-16T09:58:38Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2016 | |
dc.identifier.citation | Eiselen, S. & Chitimira, H. 2016. The requirements for adequate security in Lieu of an enrichment Lien. Journal of Contemporary Roman Dutch Law, 79:652-660. [https://ssrn.com/abstract=2971374] | |
dc.identifier.issn | 1682-4490 | |
dc.identifier.uri | https://ssrn.com/abstract=2971374 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10394/24470 | |
dc.description.abstract | Pheiffer v Van Wyk 2015 5 SA 464 (SCA) is a key decision in the South African enrichment law because it satisfactorily and authoritatively deals with the following problematic lien-related aspects: (a) whether a third party can furnish security on behalf of the original owner against the lien holder's or affected party's enrichment or improvement lien claim; (b) whether a court can exercise its discretion by ordering a third party who is not the owner of property to furnish security instead of upholding the impoverished party's improvement lien; (c) whether security rendered by a third party is inadequate and meaningless simply because it was furnished by that third party and not the owner; and (d) whether a court can only exercise its discretion to deprive the lien holder of possession in debtor-creditor lien cases, but not in enrichment cases. | |
dc.language.iso | en | |
dc.publisher | Elsevier | |
dc.subject | EnrichmentLien | |
dc.subject | Security | |
dc.subject | Enrichment Lien | |
dc.subject | Improvement Lien | |
dc.subject | Debtor-Creditor Lien | |
dc.title | The requirements for adequate security in Lieu of an enrichment Lien | |
dc.type | Article | |
dc.contributor.researchID | 25319655 - Chitimira, Howard | |