The requirement of excusable mistake in the context of the condictio indebiti: Scottish and South African law compared

dc.contributor.authorScott, Helen
dc.date.accessioned2016-01-22T08:52:19Z
dc.date.available2016-01-22T08:52:19Z
dc.date.issued2007
dc.date.updated2016-01-19T09:25:33Z
dc.description.abstractBoth Scotland and South Africa recognize a requirement of excusable mistake in the context of the condictio indebiti, the action for the recovery of mistaken payments. Since the law of unjustified enrichment in both jurisdictions is essentially civilian in origin, this resemblance is unsurprising. However, the requirement has in fact evolved very differently in each of these jurisdictions. While Scottish law demonstrates the relatively orderly and linear development of the excusability requirement from its origins in Roman law, the influence of the ius commune remedy of restitutio in integrum on the South African condictio indebiti has been a decisive factor in the progressive strengthening of this requirement in South African law. Drawing on Scottish and South African case law, this article identifies three distinct ways in which the concept of 'excusable mistake' can be understood, dubbed careless mistake, blameless mistake and justifiable mistake. Each of these versions of the requirement is evaluated, first, according to whether it is compatible with the principles underlying the condictio indebiti and, secondly, according to whether it is supported by any compelling argument of policy or equity. It is concluded that whereas the version of the requirement dominant in modern Scottish law is defensible as a matter of principle, any role which it might play as a mechanism for protecting the security of receipts is largely obviated by the defence of change of position or loss of enrichment. The second and third versions of the requirement, however, are found to be wholly incompatible with the principles underlying the condictio: whereas the second rests on an inappropriate analogy between mistake as a reason for restitution and mistake as an excuse for wrongful conduct, the third rests on a conception of the condictio indebiti - as a form of equitable intervention based on of the unconscionable conduct of the recipient - which is entirely alien to the principled basis of the action.en_ZA
dc.identifier.apacitationScott, H. (2007). The requirement of excusable mistake in the context of the condictio indebiti: Scottish and South African law compared. <i>South African Law Journal</i>, http://hdl.handle.net/11427/16507en_ZA
dc.identifier.chicagocitationScott, Helen "The requirement of excusable mistake in the context of the condictio indebiti: Scottish and South African law compared." <i>South African Law Journal</i> (2007) http://hdl.handle.net/11427/16507en_ZA
dc.identifier.citationScott, H. (2007). The requirement of excusable mistake in the context of the condictio indebiti: Scottish and South African law compared. South African Law Journal, 124(4), 827-866.en_ZA
dc.identifier.issn0038-2388en_ZA
dc.identifier.ris TY - Journal Article AU - Scott, Helen AB - Both Scotland and South Africa recognize a requirement of excusable mistake in the context of the condictio indebiti, the action for the recovery of mistaken payments. Since the law of unjustified enrichment in both jurisdictions is essentially civilian in origin, this resemblance is unsurprising. However, the requirement has in fact evolved very differently in each of these jurisdictions. While Scottish law demonstrates the relatively orderly and linear development of the excusability requirement from its origins in Roman law, the influence of the ius commune remedy of restitutio in integrum on the South African condictio indebiti has been a decisive factor in the progressive strengthening of this requirement in South African law. Drawing on Scottish and South African case law, this article identifies three distinct ways in which the concept of 'excusable mistake' can be understood, dubbed careless mistake, blameless mistake and justifiable mistake. Each of these versions of the requirement is evaluated, first, according to whether it is compatible with the principles underlying the condictio indebiti and, secondly, according to whether it is supported by any compelling argument of policy or equity. It is concluded that whereas the version of the requirement dominant in modern Scottish law is defensible as a matter of principle, any role which it might play as a mechanism for protecting the security of receipts is largely obviated by the defence of change of position or loss of enrichment. The second and third versions of the requirement, however, are found to be wholly incompatible with the principles underlying the condictio: whereas the second rests on an inappropriate analogy between mistake as a reason for restitution and mistake as an excuse for wrongful conduct, the third rests on a conception of the condictio indebiti - as a form of equitable intervention based on of the unconscionable conduct of the recipient - which is entirely alien to the principled basis of the action. DA - 2007 DB - OpenUCT DP - University of Cape Town J1 - South African Law Journal LK - https://open.uct.ac.za PB - University of Cape Town PY - 2007 SM - 0038-2388 T1 - The requirement of excusable mistake in the context of the condictio indebiti: Scottish and South African law compared TI - The requirement of excusable mistake in the context of the condictio indebiti: Scottish and South African law compared UR - http://hdl.handle.net/11427/16507 ER - en_ZA
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11427/16507
dc.identifier.vancouvercitationScott H. The requirement of excusable mistake in the context of the condictio indebiti: Scottish and South African law compared. South African Law Journal. 2007; http://hdl.handle.net/11427/16507.en_ZA
dc.languageengen_ZA
dc.publisherJuta Lawen_ZA
dc.publisher.departmentDepartment of Private Lawen_ZA
dc.publisher.facultyFaculty of Lawen_ZA
dc.publisher.institutionUniversity of Cape Town
dc.sourceSouth African Law Journalen_ZA
dc.source.urihttp://reference.sabinet.co.za/sa_epublication/ju_salj
dc.titleThe requirement of excusable mistake in the context of the condictio indebiti: Scottish and South African law compareden_ZA
dc.typeJournal Articleen_ZA
uct.subject.keywordscondictio indebitien_ZA
uct.subject.keywordsscottish lawen_ZA
uct.subject.keywordssouth african lawen_ZA
uct.type.filetypeText
uct.type.filetypeImage
uct.type.publicationResearchen_ZA
uct.type.resourceArticleen_ZA
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Scott_requirement_excusable_2007.pdf
Size:
172.16 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
license.txt
Size:
1.72 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description:
Collections