Juta and Co Ltd and the South African Law Journal: a milestone
- Authors: Glover, Graham B
- Date: 2012
- Language: English
- Type: text , article
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/70539 , vital:29673 , https://hdl.handle.net/10520/EJC54018
- Description: It might be said that the relationship between a journal and its publisher is something like an arranged marriage: it is cultural rather than romantic, and it is more of a business deal carefully considered by those in charge of both sets of parties with quiet aspirations of a solid future than about the passion and emotion of the wedding. There is much that is controversial about the social construct of an arranged marriage, but the relationship between the South African Law Journal (SALJ) and Juta and Company Ltd (to be referred to hereafter by its more common sobriquet in the legal profession: 'Juta') does seem to give credence to one of the most popular psychologies about the institution: that very often the relationship, a little uncertain at the start, grows stronger and more secure over time. The year 2011 marked the centenary of the publication of the SALJ by Juta: an exceptional anniversary. This is not a time to review the history of the relationship between Juta, the SALJ, and its various editors. This task has been carried out several times by Ellison Kahn in his inimitable style (see 'Fifty years of the Journal under Union' (1960) 77 SALJ 162; 'The birth and life of the South African Law Journal' (1983) 100 SALJ 594; 'Foreword' to Patricia Cobbledick and Mervyn Dendy The South African Law Journal Cumulative Index 1973-1997 (1997); 'Farewell! Fifty years' hard work comes to an end' (1999) 116 SALJ 691; 'Speech at the Juta Dinner at the South African Law Journal Jubilee Conference' (2004) 121 SALJ 271). But a short commemorative tribute seems apt to commemorate the liaison between the two parties.
- Full Text: false
- Authors: Glover, Graham B
- Date: 2012
- Language: English
- Type: text , article
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/70539 , vital:29673 , https://hdl.handle.net/10520/EJC54018
- Description: It might be said that the relationship between a journal and its publisher is something like an arranged marriage: it is cultural rather than romantic, and it is more of a business deal carefully considered by those in charge of both sets of parties with quiet aspirations of a solid future than about the passion and emotion of the wedding. There is much that is controversial about the social construct of an arranged marriage, but the relationship between the South African Law Journal (SALJ) and Juta and Company Ltd (to be referred to hereafter by its more common sobriquet in the legal profession: 'Juta') does seem to give credence to one of the most popular psychologies about the institution: that very often the relationship, a little uncertain at the start, grows stronger and more secure over time. The year 2011 marked the centenary of the publication of the SALJ by Juta: an exceptional anniversary. This is not a time to review the history of the relationship between Juta, the SALJ, and its various editors. This task has been carried out several times by Ellison Kahn in his inimitable style (see 'Fifty years of the Journal under Union' (1960) 77 SALJ 162; 'The birth and life of the South African Law Journal' (1983) 100 SALJ 594; 'Foreword' to Patricia Cobbledick and Mervyn Dendy The South African Law Journal Cumulative Index 1973-1997 (1997); 'Farewell! Fifty years' hard work comes to an end' (1999) 116 SALJ 691; 'Speech at the Juta Dinner at the South African Law Journal Jubilee Conference' (2004) 121 SALJ 271). But a short commemorative tribute seems apt to commemorate the liaison between the two parties.
- Full Text: false
The end of the road for the Roman rule of risk in sale?
- Authors: Glover, Graham B
- Date: 2012
- Language: English
- Type: text , article
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/70550 , vital:29674 , https://hdl.handle.net/10520/EJC127052
- Description: The venerable Roman rule of risk in the law of sale – “perfecta emptione periculum est emptoris” – has always been a rule that has courted controversy, be it in the South African legal system or others where it has operated. In an excellent piece of analytical historical scholarship titled “Perfecta emptione periculum est emptoris: Why all the fuss?” Van den Bergh argued in 2008 that, despite all the ink that has been spent on critiquing the rule in the thousands of years that have passed since its genesis, the rule has endured, and there are indeed reasons (partly practical and partly policy-related) that have justified its resilience. In this article I do not wish to dispute her carefully researched historiographical conclusions. Rather, I wish to suggest that circumstances may now have changed. The agent of this change is, not unexpectedly, the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 (the act). The act, simply stated, changes the rule of risk that applies to consumer sale contracts. The way in which the legislation does so will be discussed fully in part 4 of the article below. But what does this legislative shift mean for the common-law rule, bearing in mind that not all contracts are contracts that fall under the act? In the remainder of the article I shall discuss whether the time has come for the common-law rule to take its bow, particularly in the light of the criticism it has always faced, the clear and consistent statements of policy that emerge from the act and comparative modern sources about where risk should fall, and the interests of fairness and uniformity of treatment of the parties to a sale contract.
- Full Text: false
- Authors: Glover, Graham B
- Date: 2012
- Language: English
- Type: text , article
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/70550 , vital:29674 , https://hdl.handle.net/10520/EJC127052
- Description: The venerable Roman rule of risk in the law of sale – “perfecta emptione periculum est emptoris” – has always been a rule that has courted controversy, be it in the South African legal system or others where it has operated. In an excellent piece of analytical historical scholarship titled “Perfecta emptione periculum est emptoris: Why all the fuss?” Van den Bergh argued in 2008 that, despite all the ink that has been spent on critiquing the rule in the thousands of years that have passed since its genesis, the rule has endured, and there are indeed reasons (partly practical and partly policy-related) that have justified its resilience. In this article I do not wish to dispute her carefully researched historiographical conclusions. Rather, I wish to suggest that circumstances may now have changed. The agent of this change is, not unexpectedly, the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 (the act). The act, simply stated, changes the rule of risk that applies to consumer sale contracts. The way in which the legislation does so will be discussed fully in part 4 of the article below. But what does this legislative shift mean for the common-law rule, bearing in mind that not all contracts are contracts that fall under the act? In the remainder of the article I shall discuss whether the time has come for the common-law rule to take its bow, particularly in the light of the criticism it has always faced, the clear and consistent statements of policy that emerge from the act and comparative modern sources about where risk should fall, and the interests of fairness and uniformity of treatment of the parties to a sale contract.
- Full Text: false
- «
- ‹
- 1
- ›
- »