Abstract
Article in AfrikaansAs far back as the early twentieth century the Appellate Division in Cassiem v Standard Bank of SA Ltd, held that:“We are bound by the English rules of evidence and the question has therefore to be decided according to English law, the rule being that parol evidence is not allowed to alter, vary, or contradict a written instrument.”The integration rule has always been an integral part of the South African law of contract where the admissibility of the presentation of extrinsic evidence of previous or collateral agreements was considered. In 1998 an extensive report was brought out by the South African Law Commission wherein certain recommendations were made to the Minister of Justice pertaining to, inter alia, the application of the integration rule in the South African law of contract. The Law Commission was of the opinion that the disadvantages of the integration rule outweighed the advantages of legal certainty and finality and recoomended that the rule be abolished and that more subjective evidence should be allowed to ascertain the true intention of the parties. The recommendations by the Law Commission however apparently died a slow death and there has been no attempt since to abolish or modify the rule in the South African legal system.In 'n previous article the view was held that the integration rule is based on a legal rule or legal fiction and that it can therefore be validly abolished or modified by legislation. Legislation is however a drastic step which should only serve as a last resort and other alternatives should first be considered. This article considers one such a possible alternative, namely the remedy of rectification. The focus will be in particular on a brief discussion of the application of the integration rule in the South African law of contract, the field of application and scope of rectification, the relation between rectification and the integration rule, and, lastly, if rectification can be utilised to avoid the strict application of the integration rule and consequently serve as an instrument for the (indirect) abolition or modification of the rule in the South-African law of contract. The conclusion is that the remedy of rectification would in all probability not in all instances be able to avoid the strict application of the integration rule and that legislation seems to be the only workable alternative to abolish or modify the integration rule in the South African law of contract.Keywords: abolish; common intention; extrinsic evidence; integration rule; law of contract; legislation; mistake; modify; rectification; written contract.
Highlights
Ver terug as die vroeë twintigste eeu het die Appèlhof in Cassiem v Standard Bank of SA Ltd,[1] beslis dat: We are bound by the English rules of evidence and the question has to be decided according to English law, the rule being that parol evidence is not allowed to alter, vary, or contradict a written instrument.[2]
Daar sal in besonder gefokus word op 'n oorsigtelike bespreking van die toepassing van die integrasiereël in die Suid-Afrikaanse kontraktereg, die aanwendingsveld en trefwydte van rektifikasie, die verband tussen rektifikasie en die integrasiereël, en, laastens, of rektifikasie aangewend kan word om die streng werking van die integrasiereël te omseil en gevolglik as werktuig kan dien vir die afskaffing of aanpassing van die reël in die Suid-Afrikaanse kontraktereg
In AXZS Industries v AF Dreyer (Pty) Ltd[104] het Willis R 'n in-diepte ondersoek geloods na of die integrasiereël van toepassing is op 'n derde party wat nie 'n party tot die ooreenkoms voor die hof is nie
Summary
Ver terug as die vroeë twintigste eeu het die Appèlhof in Cassiem v Standard Bank of SA Ltd,[1] beslis dat: We are bound by the English rules of evidence and the question has to be decided according to English law, the rule being that parol evidence is not allowed to alter, vary, or contradict a written instrument.[2]. LR 265-279 waar die standpunt ingeneem is dat die integrasiereël nie in lyn is met die huidige kontraktuele aanspreeklikheidsbenaderings soos toegepas in die Suid-Afrikaanse kontraktereg nie, en dat daar op grond van slegs hierdie feit alleen alreeds genoeg regverdiging behoort te wees vir die afskaffing of aansienlike aanpassing van die reël in die Suid-Afrikaanse kontraktereg. Die gevolgtrekking is dat die leerstuk van rektifikasie in alle waarskynlikheid nie in alle gevalle daarin sal kan slaag om die streng werking van die integrasiereël te vermy nie en dat wetgewing die enigste werkbare alternatief blyk te wees om die integrasiereël af te skaf of aan te pas in die Suid-Afrikaanse kontraktereg
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 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 callMore From: Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal/Potchefstroomse Elektroniese Regsblad
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
