{"title":"根据南非法律将担保协议中的一般偏见原则作为违约予以赔偿","authors":"John-Martin Goetsch","doi":"10.17159/1727-3781/2023/v26i0a15696","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Historically, if a creditor through his conduct prejudiced or injured a surety in the latter's rights or interest, the surety was entitled to claim release from his obligations under the general prejudice principle. However, the principle was summarily rejected by the Supreme Court of Appeal in Bock v Dubororo Investments (Pty) Ltd 2004 2 SA 242 (SCA), and it may now be determined whether there exists another interpretation in order to ensure its survival. This article considers the historical application of the general prejudice principle in suretyship agreements under South African law since the principle’s original incorporation from the English law up until its outright rejection by the Supreme Court of Appeal in Bock. It then aims to reinterpret the principle in the light of ordinary contract law principles as being nothing more than a breach of contract by the creditor.","PeriodicalId":55857,"journal":{"name":"Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Repackaging the General Prejudice Principle in Suretyship Agreements as a Breach of Contract under South African Law\",\"authors\":\"John-Martin Goetsch\",\"doi\":\"10.17159/1727-3781/2023/v26i0a15696\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Historically, if a creditor through his conduct prejudiced or injured a surety in the latter's rights or interest, the surety was entitled to claim release from his obligations under the general prejudice principle. However, the principle was summarily rejected by the Supreme Court of Appeal in Bock v Dubororo Investments (Pty) Ltd 2004 2 SA 242 (SCA), and it may now be determined whether there exists another interpretation in order to ensure its survival. This article considers the historical application of the general prejudice principle in suretyship agreements under South African law since the principle’s original incorporation from the English law up until its outright rejection by the Supreme Court of Appeal in Bock. It then aims to reinterpret the principle in the light of ordinary contract law principles as being nothing more than a breach of contract by the creditor.\",\"PeriodicalId\":55857,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.17159/1727-3781/2023/v26i0a15696\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17159/1727-3781/2023/v26i0a15696","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
在历史上,如果债权人的行为损害或者损害了保证人的权益,保证人有权根据一般损害原则要求免除其义务。然而,在Bock v Dubororo Investments (Pty) Ltd 2004年2 SA 242 (SCA)一案中,最高上诉法院立即驳回了这一原则,现在可能要确定是否存在另一种解释以确保其生存。本文考察了一般损害原则在南非法律下的保证协议中的历史适用,从该原则最初被英国法律纳入到最高上诉法院在博克案中彻底驳回为止。然后,它旨在根据普通合同法原则重新解释这一原则,认为这只不过是债权人违约。
Repackaging the General Prejudice Principle in Suretyship Agreements as a Breach of Contract under South African Law
Historically, if a creditor through his conduct prejudiced or injured a surety in the latter's rights or interest, the surety was entitled to claim release from his obligations under the general prejudice principle. However, the principle was summarily rejected by the Supreme Court of Appeal in Bock v Dubororo Investments (Pty) Ltd 2004 2 SA 242 (SCA), and it may now be determined whether there exists another interpretation in order to ensure its survival. This article considers the historical application of the general prejudice principle in suretyship agreements under South African law since the principle’s original incorporation from the English law up until its outright rejection by the Supreme Court of Appeal in Bock. It then aims to reinterpret the principle in the light of ordinary contract law principles as being nothing more than a breach of contract by the creditor.
期刊介绍:
PELJ/PER publishes contributions relevant to development in the South African constitutional state. This means that most contributions will concern some aspect of constitutionalism or legal development. The fact that the South African constitutional state is the focus, does not limit the content of PELJ/PER to the South African legal system, since development law and constitutionalism are excellent themes for comparative work. Contributions on any aspect or discipline of the law from any part of the world are thus welcomed.