Specs pertaining to positive prescription we spend most of our time in that lecture on

what you ate and towards the end we started with module line which concerns
derivative acquisition of ownership which is the module which we continue with in
today's lecture show me today's lecture ladies and gentlemen we are going to
continue with model line which as I've stated concerns derivative acquisition of
ownership in today's lecture we are going to be focusing on the first main
requirement for transferring ownership which is the real agreement so we will mainly
be focusing on the real agreement what it means and we will unpack this
requirement with reference to the first three prescribed cases of this module which
cases are the Alan and David case the dreyer case and the duplicity case before we
continue our journey into module line ladies and gentlemen I would first like to stop
and pause and discuss the purpose of this module as well as the learning outcomes
of this module given that we did not look at these aspects when we started the
module during the previous lecture so let us start by looking at the purpose of
module night so the purpose of module 9 is the following namely that after
completion of this module you should understand derivative acquisition of ownership
and be able to assist the requirements for transferring ownership especially
tournament as a mode of constructive delivery so the main focus in this module will
fall on the requirements for transferring ownership and with specific emphasis on a
tournament as a mode of constructive delivery now the prescribed cases under the
Mode of constructive delivery now they prescribe cases under this module or
prescribed so as to give content to these two main elements of the module namely
the requirements for transferring ownership on the one end on and on the other a
tournament as a mode of constructive delivery as regards the learning outcomes for
module 9 ladies and gentlemen you will see that there are 10 learning outcomes
listed in the course framework and I've put the first four up on this slide and the last
six up on the next slide now the 1st 4 learning outcomes we will all deal with in
today's lecture only the first one was already dealt with in the previous lecture
namely the distinction between derivative acquisition of ownership and original
acquisition of ownership let's look at the remaining learning outcomes which we will
cover in today's lecture the second one is that it is explaining the general
requirements for transfer of ownership and apply them to a factual scenario Thirdly
recognise now keep in mind later gentlemen that these are all outcomes which you
should be able to do after studying this module to the third one is that you should be
able to recognise the differences between the causal and abstract systems of
transfer of ownership and indicate which one is followed in South African law and
finally define and discuss the real agreement and delivery requirements and apply
them to a factual scenario so these are the first four learning outcomes and as I said
we will be focusing on them during today's lecture it is under the mic slide have a
look at what the other learning outcomes for the module are now the other learning
outcomes which you have to master under this model is gentlemen are following
firstly you should be able to differentiate between actual and constructive delivery
you should be able to state the requirements for symbolic delivery delivery with the
shorthand delivery with the longhand marking and constituting pause sorium and
apply them to effectual scenario then you should also be able to appraise the
principles of internment and apply them to a factual scenario as we saw under the
purpose of this module a few slides ago this is one of the main elements of this
module namely pretending to the principles of a tournament and that you should be
able to apply them to effectual scenario then you should be able to discuss session
of ownership as a form of delivery describe the principles of registration of transfer of
immovable property and apply them to factual scenario and finally you should be
able to present the principles relating to double sales and the doctrine of notice now
these six learning out conversion gentlemen will all form the focus of the next lecture
so we will not be focusing on them during today's lecture so against the background
of the effect of the dreyer and element David cases with the legal question which
confronted both courts was whether ownership of the movables in those cases
transferred from the transfer or to the transferee against the backdrop the
background of the facts of these cases we can now see what what the principles of
derivative acquisition of ownership are these principles derived from the road Utica
dandy laid down by the courts in those two cases for purposes of deciding the
disputes before them let us start off with three of the basic requirements necessary
for transferring property transferring ownership of property through derivative
acquisition of ownership avast requirement is that the thing must be negotiable so
the thing the property must fall within Commerce this means that it must be possible
to have private ownership over the finger hand now the distinction between
negotiable and non negotiable things we dealt with in value full this is Siri for us to
repeat them here so the first thing to say that if anything does not fall within
comments like public things or raise public I like sidewalks and beach these things
full outside of comments and seeing that they cannot be earned it's also not possible
to transfer the ownership from one person to another the second requirement is that
the transfer or now this is the owner of property who wants to transfer ownership to
someone else the transfer or must have contractual capacity so this means that the
transfer all must be capable of performing juristic acts so the transfer all must have
contractual capacity the issue of contractual capacity is answered by the law of
purse so here we ask whether the person is major because only majors in other
words people from the age of 18 and older have full contractual capacity too to
conclude contracts in their own name so here the requirements that are six in the loft
persons to have contractual capacity must be satisfied and the third requirement is
that the transferee excuse me the transferee again is the person who wishes to
receive ownership from the owner so this is the person to whom the transfer or is
transferring ownership the transferee must also have contractual capacity and
whether the transferee has contractual capacity will also be on insert by the rules
governing the law of persons generally this will be when a person is of the age of 18
and older and where there is not some other problem that that person has in terms of
contractual capacity mixed requirement for transferring ownership through derivative
acquisition of ownership is the neo plus urus rule and the full Latin Maxim of true
reads new pleasures are column transferable disc 1 deep savoury now what this
means is the following means no one is able to transfer more rights to another
person then that person has so one person maybe the transfer or the transfer or
cannot transfer more rights to the transferee then what the transfer or himself or
herself as So what this means is that if the transfer role person wish to transfer
ownership is not in fact the owner let's say it's a thief who stole property that person
cannot transfer ownership to someone else only that owner is capable of transferring
ownership to another person because of the Nemo plus eurus room this principle is a
key rule in the context of derivative acquisition of ownership as we have to determine
each dispute where there is uncertainty whether ownership transferred we have to
ask whether the transfer or in fact is actually the owners only the owner controls or
ownership through the Nemo pleasureless rule another important requirement is it is
a so called price payment rule and this was particularly relevant in the Alan and
David games now yeah we have to distinguish between credit and cash sales when
sale is for cash which is also known as cash on delivery only ship only transfers
when the full purchase price is paid so this is when the purchaser pays the full
purchase price to the transfer order and the transfer or receives the full purchase
price so when dealing with a cash sale this will be when the transfer of the transferee
agree the transferable sell the property to the transferee on a cash on delivery basis
and the transferee may take possession or control of the property in the mean time
so the mere fact that the transfer Rd hands over the property to the transferee does
not necessarily mean that ownership has thus transferred if the problem if the sale
takes place at the transit takes place in terms of a cash on delivery approach
ownership of the property only transferred to the transferee when the transfer
receives the full purchase price like terms of the price payment rule there is a
rebuttable presumption that all sales of properties are all transactions where
properties sold that such sales are cash sales cash sales we have to distinguish
from credit sales if a sale is for credit in other words if a transfer or grants credit to
the transferee so this means that the transfer or allows the transferee to pay the full
purchase price in monthly instalments if a sale is for credit transfer across credit to
the transferee ownership of the property transfers to the transfer or the moment of
delivery so the system moment when the transferee takes possession of the property
so you will see a big distinction between cash and credit sales where ownership only
transfers upon payment of the full purchase price to the transfer or in a cash sale
well when dealing with credit ownership transfers immediately appan delivery of the
property to the transferee no because of the potential danger to the inches of the
transfer or when dealing with a credit sale in most sales where credit is granted
because by far the most transactions in South Africa occur through credit sales as
very few people have enough money on hand to pay the full purchase price in one
go what transfers do to protect their own interests they they sell property in terms of
a reservation of owners in terms of a reservation of ownership agreement so they
insert what is known as a reservation of ownership clause into the contract of sale
So what this means is that the transfer rule concludes sales agreement with the
transferee credit is granted in terms of which the transferee may pay the full
purchase price to the transfer Rd in monthly instalments and in terms of the
reservation of ownership clause ownership is not transferred immediately to the
transferee upon delivery of the property through the transferee the reservation of
ownership clause entails that ownership of the property only transfers to the
transferee the moment that the last instalment is paid to the transfer or so this means
that even when dealing with a credit sale we have to ask whether there is a
reservation of ownership clause in the sales agreement we now come to the
distinction between abstract system for transferring ownership and a causal system
for transferring ownership now this distinction is a fundamental as the moment when
ownership transfers differs to pending on weather system in one's country follows
abstract system or a causal system in South Africa we adhere to the abstract system
and not to the causal system I wanted to explain the abstract system this first look at
what causal system entails in terms of the causal system when there is a contractual
agreement between transfer and a transferee to transfer ownership of property
rquirement is the existence of a valid contract now let's take an example when you
and a friend are sitting together in a pub the coronavirus St often locked up when
you're sitting together in apartment and you are having a drink together and you wish
to sell one of your old textbooks to your friend your textbook is located in your in your
home so you don't have it on hand so you couldn't agreement with your friend that
you will sell your old textbook to your friend for a certain price now if you then reach
agreement and your friend pays you the purchase price the contract is concluded
and ownership of that textbook transfers to your friends even though the textbook is
at your home and you must still hand over the textbook to your friend so this is how
the talks for ownership will look when you when you're working with a causal system
in an abstract system you have the same situation you and your friend or in above
and you are selling your textbook which is at home to your friend and your friend
pays the purchase price to you under the abstract system ownership would not have
transferred and the reason for this is because in the abstract system a distinction is
drawn between the so called obligation creating agreement which is the contract of
sale and the actual transfer of ownership so here we have to distinguish between
two juristic acts the obligation creating agreement contract of sale is 1 juristic act this
juristic act on its own is insufficient for transferring ownership another juristic act is
necessary for transferring ownership so yeah the transfer of ownership is separated
from the obligation creating agreement namely the contract of sale so the choice of
ownership is abstracted from the contractual agreement in terms of which the parties
tried to transfer ownership and hence the name abstract system of transfer for this
approach for transferring ownership what does the abstract system entail the
abstract system for transferring ownership has two requirements the first
requirement is known as the real agreement and the second requirement is known
as delivery or in Latin traditio birthdys requirements must be satisfied in addition to
the obligated obligation creating agreement for ownership to transfer in fact all that is
required is the existence of a valid real agreement plus delivery each of the early 2
requirements which are necessary for transferring ownership in terms of the abstract
system of transfer there is agreement and the delivery or traditional requirements are
two of the key requirements for transferring ownership through derivative acquisition
of ownership and it is therefore unsurprising that the police were five prescribed
cases under this module all in some way or another relay to these two requirements
in this sense the J add and David and duplessi cases give us a clearer indication of
what the real agreement entails what it requirements are and how its requirements
should be applied to legal disputes in today's like Julia mainly going to be focusing
on the real agreement as many of the problems batane to this requirement so for this
reason we will be looking at the dreyer Alan David and duplessi cases the next
lecture we will be looking at delivery and as a result also then be focusing on the
Barclays and southern tankers decisions Now that we have looked at the principles
of tribute if acquisition of ownership this return to the dreyer decision you recall that
what happened in the dryer case there was a dispute about the transfer of ownership
of certain movable sold at the post liquidation sale so in that case the appeal and
sold movables of a bankrupt company at a post liquidation sale the appellants as the
liquidators of the bankrupt company only intended to sell certain of the movables that
were present at the post liquidation sale eat responded intended to is to receive
ownership to purchase in other words all the moveables that were at the post
liquidation sale so in that case now he responded this arguing that it acquired
ownership of all the moveables while the appellants argued that the respondent only
acquired ownership of the movables which they actually intended to cell so the
dispute in the dryer case was not about the chance of ownership which the
appellants did intend to sell the dispute is about those movables which the
appellants did not intend to sell but which the respondents thought that it acquired
ownership already paid the full purchase price no in the dryer decision which was
decided by the Supreme Court of appeal and where judge of appeal brand to wrote
the unanimous judgement for the court the judge of appeal again emphasise the
importance of the fact that we follow the abstract system of transport in South African
more and he said to understand what the abstract system of transfer means is we
have to distinguish between the goals were the chance for that lead that leads the
charts of ownership and the transfer of ownership itself so these are two separate
juristic acts the cause for the transfer such as the contract of sale or donation is
known as the obligation creating agreements or the application creating agreement
is the agreement which precedes the transfer of ownership the application creating
agreement has its own requirements in terms of the law of contract well the transfer
of ownership is a separate juristic act so the transfer is separated or abstracted from
the application creating agreement and the other two requirements we have the real
agreement and we have delivery and both these requirements must be satisfied for
there to be a valid transfer of ownership one of the main features of an abstract
system of transfer is the following and he said if the cause for transfer said the
contract of sale is for some reason invalid or even void that this does not need then
necessarily mean that the transfer of ownership is also invalid avoid the question is
always whether there was a valid real agreement coupled with delivery if there was a
valid agreement along with delivery ownership with transferred even in a situation
where the obligation creating agreement is invalid off to explaining the characteristics
of an abstract system of transfer judge appeal brunt went into the real agreement so
he told us what the requirements for a real agreement are in the case at hand the
delivery requirement was was not an issue because the movables have not yet been
delivered to the respondent said they have not actually get bean hand hand it over to
the respondents so the decision turned on whether there was compliance with the
real agreement now the real agreement the judge of appeal tells us consists of two
intentions it consists of the intention to transfer ownership and an intention to receive
ownership any rule that both these intentions must coincide they must exist
simultaneously for there to be a valid real agreement if both these intentions do not
exist simultaneously then there is no valid real agreement and ownership cannot
transfer no against this background he looked at the facts at hand and he saw that
excuse me on the side of the respondent there was a clear intention to receive
ownership of all the moveables at the post liquidation said true purchasing the
movables through paying the purchase price it intended to receive ownership of all
movable so clearly there is an intention to receive ownership on the side of the
transferee the question is now is there also an intention to transfer ownership on the
side of the transfer or the court looked at the evidence and it saw that the
appearance who will the liquidators of the bankrupt company in terms of the contract
of sale concluded between the transfer and the transferee only intended to transfer
ownership of certain movables at the post liquidation sale so it never they never had
the intention to transfer ownership of all the moveables to the respondent in the case
at hand so do you do the fact that the appearance did not have the intention to
transfer ownership of all the moveables this means that there is no valid real
agreement and due to the fact that there is no valid real agreement means that there
is non compliance with this requirement for the transfer of ownership and this means
that ownership of the disputed movables did not transfer to the respondent as
regards the tenant David case you will recall that the problem in that case was with
the ownership of the five panel vans transferred to the defendant as in that case the
plaintiffs sold the fire panel vans two briest on a cash on delivery basis and panel
vans with subsequently handed over to briest no place then became bankrupt and
now the defendant has been appointed to administer the bankrupt estate of priest
now the court said and here we have to remember the distinction between cash and
credit sales so in this case this distinction was very important for the outcome of the
case previous want breast wanted to purchase the panel vans on credit and the
plaintiff specifically refused to grant credit to breast and he said that it'll only only sell
the vehicles on cash on delivery basis so that was their agreement and the vehicles
within delivered possession of the vehicles were transferred to briest within became
insolvent and could not pay the full purchase price so yeah it was not entirely clear
whether the the sale was for cash and whether the plaintiff actually extended credit
to the defendant because it was not expressly stated in the contract of sale that's the
plaintiff wanted to sell the battle of the battle vans to the defendant in terms of a cash
sale only stated during negotiations that it would only sell the panel vans to the
defendant in terms of a casual on delivery basis so yeah the court had to determine
what the intention of the parties was now in this regard the the judge in the case
ruled that there is a rebuttable presumption our law that if there is uncertainty
whether sellers for cash or credit that's the presumption is that the transfer or
concluded a cash sale with the transferee now do NASA this is the rebuttable
presumption that is applicable in this case this is indicative of the fact that ownership
would only transferred upon be transfer or receiving the full purchase price no the
court also looked at the evidence and it it's so but on the evidence the plaintiff
retained the spare keys the petrol caps and the guarantee and service books of the
fire panel banks and the court ruled that if credit was granted and if ownership if the
transfer or intended for ownership to transfer immediately it would have handed over
these items because these items are usually accompany vehicles usually the owner
of vehicles will have the spare keys the petrol caps and the guarantee and service
books of their vehicles so these so retaining these items indicates that the intention
of the plaintiff was only to transfer ownership once the full purchase price has been
paid

Thought that it acquired ownership of when it paid the full purchase price no in the
dryer decision which was decided by the Supreme Court of appeal and where judge
of appeal brand to wrote the unanimous judgement for the court the judge of appeal
again emphasise the importance of the fact that we follow the abstract system of
transferred in South African law and he said to understand what the abstract system
of transfer means as we have to distinguish between the goals with the chance for
that lead that leads the chance of ownership and the transfer of ownership itself so
these are two separate juristic acts the course for the transfer such as the contract of
sale or donation is known as the obligation creating agreements or the application
creating agreement is the agreement which precedes the transfer of ownership the
application creating agreement has its own requirements in terms of the law of
contract well the transfer of ownership is a separate juristic act so the transfer is
separated or abstracted from the application creating agreement and the other two
requirements we have the real agreement and we have delivery and both these
requirements must be satisfied for there to be a valid transfer of ownership one of
the main features of an abstract system of transfer is the following that he said if the
cause for transfer said the contract of sale is for some reason invalid or even void
that this does not need then necessarily mean that the transfer of ownership is also
invalid ovoid the question is always whether there was a valid real agreement
coupled with delivery if there was a valid agreement along with delivery ownership
with transferred even in my situation where the obligation creating agreement is
invalid OFT explaining the characteristics of an abstract system of transfer judge of
appeal brunt went into the real agreement so he told us what the requirements for a
real agreement are in the case at hand the delivery requirement was was not an
issue because the movables have not yet been delivered to the respondents and
they've not actually yet been hand handed over to the respondents so the decision
turned on whether there was compliance with the real agreement now the real
agreement the judge of appeal tells us consists of two intentions it consists of the
intention to transfer ownership and an intention to receive ownership any rule that
both these intentions must coincide they must exist simultaneously for there to be a
valid real agreement if both these intentions do not exist simultaneously and there is
no valid real agreement and ownership cannot transfer no against this background
he looked at the facts at hand and he saw that excuse me on the side of the
respondent there was a clear intention to receive ownership of all the moveables at
the post liquidation said so true purchasing the movables through paying the
purchase price it intended to receive ownership of all movable so clearly there is an
intention to receive ownership on the side of the transferee the question is now is
there also an intention to transfer ownership on the side of the transfer or the court
looked at the evidence and it saw that the appellants who will the liquidators of the
bankrupt company in terms of the contract of sale concluded between the transfer
and the transferee only intended to transfer ownership of certain movables at the
post liquidation sale so it near they never had the intention to transfer ownership of
all the moveables to the respondent in the case at hand so due to the fact that the
appellants did not have the intention to transfer ownership of all the moveables this
means that there is no valid real agreement and due to the fact that there is no valid
real agreement means that there is non compliance with this requirement for the
transfer of ownership and this means that ownership of the disputed movables did
not transfer to the respondent as regards the Adam David case you will recall that
the problem in that case was with the ownership of the five panel vans transferred to
the defendant as in that case the plaintiffs sold the five panel vans two greased on a
cash on delivery basis and panel vans with was subsequently handed over to briest
no place then became bankrupt and now the defendant has been appointed to
administer the bankrupt estate of priest now the court said and here we have to
remember the distinction between cash and credit sales so in this case this
distinction was very important for the outcome of the case previous want breast
wanted to purchase the panel vans on credit and the plaintiff specifically refused to
grant credit to list and it said that it'll only only sell the vehicles on cash on delivery
basis so that was their agreement and the vehicles within delivered possession of
the vehicles with transferred to briest within became insolvent and could not pay the
full purchase price so yet it was not entirely clear weather the sale was for cash and
whether the plaintiff actually extended credit to the defendant because it was not
expressly stated in the contract of sale that's the plaintiff wanted to sell the battle of
the battle vans to the defendant in terms of a cash sale only stated during
negotiations that it would only sell the panel vans to the defendant in terms of a
casual on delivery basis so the other quarter to determine what the intention of the
parties was now in this regard the the judge in the case ruled that there is a
rebuttable presumption our law that if there is uncertainty whether the sale was for
cash or credit that the presumption is that the transfer or concluded a cash sale with
the transferee now do NASA this is the rebuttable presumption that is applicable in
this case as this is indicative of the fact that ownership would only transfer napan be
transfer or receiving the full purchase price no the court also looked at the evidence
and it it so that on the evidence the plaintiff retained the spare keys the petrol caps
and the guarantee and service books of the fire panel vans and the court ruled that if
credit was granted and if ownership if the transfer or intended for ownership to
transfer immediately it would have handed over these items because these items are
usually accompany vehicles usually the owner of vehicles for that the spare keys the
petrol caps and the guarantee and service books of the vehicles so Lees so retaining
these items indicates that the intention of the plaintiff was only to transfer ownership
once the full purchase price has been paid so this corroborates the rebuttable
presumption that what the parties intended here was to have a cash sale so the
weather a sale is for cash or credit just touches on the real agreement requirement
for transferring ownership if it is a cash sale then the transfer only intends to transfer
ownership once the transfer or receives the full purchase price if the sale is for credit
then transfer in transfer or intends to transfer ownership immediately once the
property is delivered to the transferee so having retained the spare keys the petrol
caps under guarantee and service books as indicates that the plaintive only intended
to transfer ownership upon payment of the full purchase price the full purchase price
was not paid in in this case so this means that ownership of the panel vans still
resides with plaintiff and did not transfer to the transferee and this therefore means
that plaintiff could therefore reclaim the panel vans from the insolvent estate of priest
with the Raven the Guardia important consideration for acting judge foxcroft in
handing down his decision in the ad and David case is the fact that to determine
whether a sale is for cash and credit always depends on the circumstances of the
case it's so it specifically depends on what the intentions of the parties were and this
needs to be determined from the evidence before the court from the facts of this
case there was no clear reservation of ownership on the side of the plaintiff so this
could clearly not have been a case of credit sale where ownership was reserved until
the full purchase price was paid and it was for this reason that the court had to
clearly set out the principles governing cash and credit sales and through also
scrutinising the evidence namely the fact that the plaintiff retained possession of
spare keys petrol caps and guarantee and service books of the panel lands which
corroborated the presumption that the cash was indeed at the sale was indeed for
cash and that ownership would therefore only transferred upon the plaintiff receiving
the full purchase price not come to the last decision for today's lecture days
gentlemen and sentence the decision of two PC business profit IAS which is decided
by the Supreme Court of appeal in 2010 and this I decision again the unanimous
decision by the Supreme Court of appeal which was retained by judge of appeal no
what happened in the duplessi case is the following he Campbell childrens trust or
the CC trust was the owner of certain land which is then the disputed land in this
case in January of 2004 see see trust concluded a written agreement of sale of the
land with witco properties or W properties after the conclusion of the contract of sale
for selling the land which was for an amount of 45,000 Rand all the necessary
paperwork was concluded to register the land in the name of W properties now at
this point I quickly want to pause to explain an element of the delivery requirement
for transfer of ownership we deal with movable property he to have to compete to
comply with the delivery requirements immovable property must be physically
handed over to the transferee so possession must be transferred to transferee so as
to enable transfer Lee to have exclusive position and control of the property to the
exclusion of all others delivery in the context of land occurs through registering the
land in the name of the transferee in the deeds registry so as this case is this case
filled with land it was clear that the delivery requirement would only be complied with
the moment the land is registered in the name of the transferee now what happened
then is that a few months later namely in October 2004 the same CC trust which is
which one though not the land was approached by Mr and Mrs perfidious to
purchase the land for a substantially higher amount they offered this easy trust 100
and 95,000 Rand purchased the land which is significantly higher than the 45,000
Rand for which this easy just sold the land to W properties cz trusted agreed
because it so that it could make more money it agreed to sell end to the to Mr misses
profit IAS and said that the at 11 lost the original title deed when it concluded the
contract of sale so CC just concluded a contract of sale with Mr and Mrs Brophy
tiswas and a duplicate title deed was then provided to Mr and Mrs profecias what
happened they need our timeline is that in February 2005 the land was registered in
the name of Mr and Mrs profecias keep in mind that a contract of sale is also
concluded between CC trust and W properties before Sisi just concluded a contract
with Mr and Mrs Prometheus however the land was only registered in the name of W
properties in 2005 in May 2005 so in February 2005 the land was registered in the
names of Mr and Mrs perfidious while in May 2005 upper land was registered in the
name of W properties So what happened next is that the registrar of deeds
discovered that there was a double registration as the piece of land was registered
under two separate title deeds in the names of two different parties so a disputed I
dispute therefore occured between between Mr duplessis as Mr duplessis purchased
the property from W purchased the land from W properties and the profit IAS family
so the question which came up for decision before the Supreme Court of appeal is
who is the owner of the land that ownership transfer from CC trust to W properties
who could then transfer ownership to duplessi or did ownership transfer from the CC
trust to the profit IAS family if ownership transferred to the previous family and they
are the owner or owners of the land and that is the end of the matter if ownership
transferred from CC trust 2 W properties that then W properties would have been
able to transfer ownership of the land to do plus CW properties would not have been
able to transfer ownership to duplicity because of the operation of the Nemo plus
eurus rule as you cannot transfer more rights than you have Thomas caught up with
us ladies and gentlemen so we will conclude our discussion of the duplessi case
during the next lecture so this thing brings us to the end of today's lecture ladies and
gentlemen and I would like to thank you for your attention so during the next lecture
on the 12th of may we're going to complete module 9 and please prepare the
following sources which are listed here on the slide for that lecture I would like to
wish you a pleasant afternoon further letters and gentlemen and you will hear again
from me during our lecture on Wednesday this week