Browsing by Author "Visser, Daniel P"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Open Access
    The change of position defence in comparative perspective
    (2009) Jorge, Aimite; Visser, Daniel P
    This work examines the change-of-position (loss of enrichment) defence comparatively in five jurisdictions, namely South Africa, Brazil, England Canada and USA. It advances a three-part argument which contends, first, that when a legal system opts for a general enrichment principle, it must equally limit it with defences. Secondly, that once the limiting mechanisms are chosen, the system must demarcate their contours and establish the inevitable exceptions. Thirdly, that legal system, as a consequence, must also decide whether to require a symmetric ‘gain-loss’ situation, i.e., whether to insist that the measure of recovery be limited by the plaintiff’s loss. If it chooses a symmetry ‘gainloss’, that system might face difficulties avoiding a passing on defence, as the reverse face of change-of-position on the plaintiff’s side, thereby potentially undermining indirectly the principle of legality. If it departs from that symmetry, the passing on defence may ‘normatively’ be ignored, unless for policy reasons it opts to have it. The study concludes that South Africa is bound to adopt explicitly a general principle of unjustified enrichment with change of position as the general defence applicable to all unjustified enrichment claims, save to claims arising from failed bilateral agreements. The study recommends that South Africa may give limited recognition to the passing on defence in its private law of unjustified enrichment where policy considerations do not militate against its application.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Open Access
    Unjustified Enrichment: The Rights of Tenants to claim a lien in Respect of Improvements
    (2006) Visser, Daniel P
    The right of urban tenants to claim liens (to ensure the payment of compensation by their landlords for necessary and useful improvements that they had made to the leased property during the currency of the lease) was dramatically reinstated in Business Aviation Corporation (Pty) Ltd v Rand Airport Holdings 2006 (6) SA 605 (SCA), turning around an approach that many, including myself, (see 1993 Annual Survey 229 at 237ff and 1994 Restitution LR 261) had accepted as correct. (The decision in the court a quo is discussed in the chapter on the Law of Lease.)