UNIVERSITY OF THE FREE STATE

BLOEMFONTEIN CAMPUS

LPIL4810 TAKE-HOME ASSIGNMENT

PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW

DEPARTMENT: PRIVATE LAW
ASSESSOR: DR LR NGWENYAMA
INTERNAL MODERATOR: DR A SEPTEMBER-VAN HUFFEL
DUE DATE: 9 MAY 2024
MARKS: 40

INSTRUCTIONS:

1. Answer all questions.

2. Read the questions carefully.
3. Refer to relevant authority where applicable.
4. Submit your answers electronically — MSWord file.
5. MSWord file must be presented as: A4 pages; normal margins; 12pt
Arial; 1.5 line spacing; justified.
6. Submission should not exceed 2 pages.
7. Submission should include your student number.
8. The assignment will open on 29 April 2024 @08:00am and close on 9
May 2024 @23:59pm.
9. No late submissions will be accepted.

QUESTION 1
In 1975, Gin and Tonic got married whilst both had their domicile in England. In
terms of the English Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, they were married ex lege out of
community of property. In 2024, they visited South Africa and Tonic bought a flat
(“voetstoots”) for speculation purposes from Dash without Gin’s consent. Shortly
afterward, Tonic realised the property is a poor investment and has since refused to
pay the purchase price. Dash now claims the amount due. Fully advise both Tonic
and Dash on the capacity of a married woman to contract.
(8)

QUESTION 2

Black and Label were married out of community of property in 2009 in Glasgow
where they had both been domiciled. In 2024, the Glasgow matrimonial property
system changed retrospectively to out of community coupled with the court’s
discretion to redistribute property on the dissolution of marriage. They left Glasgow in
1999 and moved to South Africa where they are domiciled now. Soon afterwards,
they applied to court for an order changing their matrimonial property system to the
accrual system. The court granted the application. Fully advise Black and Label on
the matrimonial property system that applies to their marriage.
(8)

QUESTION 3

Mocktail is domiciled in South Africa. He married a person (Cocktail) who then was
domiciled in Burundi and the marriage took place in that country as well. At the time
of the marriage, Mocktail and Cocktail signed a standardised Hortors antenuptial
contract (ANC) whereby all forms of sharing were excluded. Being head over heels
in love Cocktail was not very bothered about the contents of the document, which
she signed. As it turned out, the ANC was formally invalid ab initio because it did not
comply with the legal rules of Burundi. Mocktail however registered the contract after
5 months’ delay in South Africa when they set foot ashore in this country to stay
permanently. Not too long after their arrival, Mocktail died in an aeroplane crash. His
Will stipulated that Cocktail would enjoy a usufruct, but that his children would inherit
his massive 5 million rand estate. This came as a shock to Cocktail and she queries
the outcome, because the basic Burundian matrimonial law would have given her
half of the accumulated estate of her husband (in the absence of a valid ANC). Fully
advise Cocktail on the formal validity of the ANC.
(8)

QUESTION 4

An offer was made by Jack from the Netherlands (Amsterdam) to Daniels, a South
African from Gauteng. The offer was accepted and duly posted on the 20/04/2024.
On the 21st of April 2024, Jack (the offeror) decided to withdraw his offer and
phoned Daniels (the South African) to inform him accordingly. Daniels (the South
African offeree) is convinced that a valid contract was concluded, because the place
where the letter of acceptance was posted will determine the validity of the contract.
Contrary to this, Jack (the offeror from the Netherlands) argues that the message to
revoke reached Daniels (the offeree) long before he himself received the letter of
acceptance – the contract, therefore, never came into existence. Fully advise
Daniels on the solution available to him and the phenomenon shown by the facts.
(8)

QUESTION 5

Whisky and Double are married and domiciled in South Africa. Some time ago, they
decided to take a trip to Victoria Falls in Zimbabwe. They travelled with a friend
(Rocks) and used their “4X4 by far” being registered in Gauteng. Rocks did not pay
anything for the trip. Whilst touring Zimbabwe, Whisky drives negligently into a
donga and Rocks was seriously injured when flung out of the vehicle. Assume that
according to Zimbabwean legislation, no passenger (being transported free of
charge) will have a claim against the negligent driver of a vehicle once injuries have
been sustained in a motor vehicle accident. Had the accident occurred in South
Africa, Rocks would have successfully claimed a delict. Advise Whisky and Rocks on
the appropriate rule to be applied in the set of facts and where to institute an action.
(8)

TOTAL: [40]