School of Law (Journal Articles)

Permanent URI for this collectionhttps://hdl.handle.net/10539/38064

Browse

Filters

20182

Settings

Start date: 2010Subject: search.filters.subject.Contract

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    What’s the deal? women’s evidence and gendered negotiations
    (Springer, 2018-11) Bonthuys, Elsje
    South African law has traditionally denied property sharing rights to people in nonmarital intimate partnerships, but a series of new cases has created the possibility of enforcing universal partnership contracts to claim a share in partnership property.However, evidential biases within these progressive cases reflect a historical disdain for women’s contributions to relationships and a widespread reluctance to believe women’s testimony about the existence of agreements to share. These biases bear strong resemblances to the gender stereotypes which have been the subject of feminist critique in rape law. Central to both rape and universal partnerships is the issue of consent or agreement between men and women. This, in turn, depends on social beliefs about male and female entitlements in the realms of sex and intimate relationships. The paper highlights the commonalities and parallels between the legal treatment of women’s evidence about the existence of contracts on the one hand, and the prejudice faced by complainants in rape cases.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    A duty of support for all South African unmarried intimate partners Part 2: developing customary and common law and circumventing the volks judgment
    (Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal, 2018-10-19) Bonthuys, Elsje
    Part I of this two-part article argued that post-constitutional developments of the right to support have excluded the largest and most vulnerable sector of South African women – African women in invalid customary marriages and in intimate partnerships which do not resemble monogamous Western nuclear households. Part II explores the avenues to develop customary and common law to extend rights to support to these women. It argues that the current position discriminates against poor, rural African women on multiple intersecting grounds, which creates a duty for courts to develop the current legal rules. Customary law affords scope for development in relation to women in invalid customary marriages. Common law rights to support can be extended either ex contractu or ex lege. Because contractual support rights are of limited use to poor women, the legacy of the majority judgments in Volks v Robinson 2005 5 BCLR 446 (CC) (Volks) must be confronted to strengthen the legal basis for an automatic duty of support to all women in unmarried intimate relationships. The argument in Volks that, women choose to forego legal rights by not getting married is criticised. The minority judgment in Laubscher v Duplan 2017 2 SA 264 (CC) does, however, create potential for overturning this reasoning.