Abstract
It is generally accepted that an abstract system is applied in South Africa with regard to the transfer of ownership. It is a characteristic of the abstract system that the different legal acts which form part of the process, namely the obligatory agreement, delivery of the thing concerned or registration, and the real agreement are separated from each other and that each has its own requirements. However, there is no certainty about the question as to whether or not this distinction stems from Roman law. The purpose of this article is to ascertain whether the distinction between the different legal acts existed in the vulgar law.
 It appears that the legal position in the vulgar law differs from South African law in that no distinction between the obligatory agreement and delivery of the thing existed. The conclusion of the sale, payment of the purchase price and the delivery of the merx took place simultaneously. It was considered to be one single act which also transferred ownership from one person to another. It furthermore appears that the intention of the parties to transfer ownership played a very important role. Yet, it was only the intention that existed at the time when the obligatory agreement was entered into, that mattered. Ownership did not pass by virtue of a separate meeting of the minds which could be abstracted from the obligatory agreement.
 Although certain formal requirements, the purpose of which were to enable the state to collect taxes, had been introduced in the vulgar law, writing and registration had not been regarded as formal requirements for the transfer of ownership in immovable property. Yet, the practice had been to draw written documents relating to the contract of sale, and to register them in municipal registers. This form of registration, however, is not tantamount to registration in the Deeds Registry.
 The conclusion is that an independent real agreement, which could be abstracted from the obligatory agreement was unknown to the vulgar law. There was no clear-cut distinction between the different legal acts such as that existing in South African law at present.
Highlights
Levy[11] verduidelik die ontwikkeling van die vulgêre reg soos volg: The evolution of the vulgar law was essentially a process from within that had slowly and gradually developed through the centuries and had come into the open in the fourth century when, no longer hampered by the orthodoxy of the imperial chancellery, the laywers felt free to follow their own way of thinking
Soos wat reeds aangetoon is, onderskei die konstruksie van die saaklike ooreenkoms tussen die causa en verskaffing van fisiese beheer as twee afsonderlike regshandelinge
Anders as wat in die Suid-Afrikaaanse reg die geval is, was een enkele verhouding, naamlik diè tussen die verbintenisskeppende ooreenkoms en verskaffing van fisiese beheer in die vulgêre reg oorheersend
Summary
Dat ondersoek ingestel moet word na die verhouding tussen die verskillende elemente in die oordragsproses in elkeen van die tydperke van die Romeinse regsgeskiedenis.[2] Hierdie artikel is daarop gerig om vas te stel of daar in die vulgêre reg[3] tussen die verskillende regshandelinge onderskei is, en wat die onderskeid behels het.[4]. Alone would have enabled them to uphold the standards of the great jurists, to penetrate the checks and balances of their system and to adapt it organically to the needs of the time They did not comprehend that highly artistic approach, in which any notion had its exact significance and a clear cut relation to other concepts. Vervolgens sal die vulgêre siening van die vorme van saaklike beheer bespreek word met die oog daarop om die invloed wat dit op die wyses waarop eiendomsreg oorgedra is aan te toon
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
