Case Notes: Furnishing employees with the petition for sequestration-constitutional and related issues: Stratford & others v Investec Bank Ltd & others 2015 (3) SA 1 (CC)

Case Notes: Furnishing employees with the petition for sequestration-constitutional and related issues: Stratford & others v Investec Bank Ltd & others 2015 (3) SA 1 (CC)

Authors Howard Chitimira

ISSN: 1996-2185
Affiliations: Associate Professor, North-West University
Source: South African Mercantile Law Journal, Volume 29 Issue 1, 2017, p. 153 – 171

Abstract

None

Case Notes: A rose by any other name would smell as sweet: Universal Church of The Kingdom of God v Myeni & others (2015) 36 ILJ 2832 (LAC)

Case Notes: A rose by any other name would smell as sweet: Universal Church of The Kingdom of God v Myeni & others (2015) 36 ILJ 2832 (LAC)

Authors Lux Lesley Kubjana, Bongani Khumalo

ISSN: 1996-2185
Affiliations: Lecturer, Department of Mercantile Law, University of South Africa
Source: South African Mercantile Law Journal, Volume 29 Issue 1, 2017, p. 140 – 152

Abstract

None

Analysis: Is an ‘incidental credit agreement’ pertinent or not?: Nedan (Pty) Ltd v Selbourne Food Manufacturers CC & another

Analysis: Is an ‘incidental credit agreement’ pertinent or not?: Nedan (Pty) Ltd v Selbourne Food Manufacturers CC & another

Authors Stéfan Renke

ISSN: 1996-2185
Affiliations: Associate Professor, Department of Mercantile Law, University of Pretoria
Source: South African Mercantile Law Journal, Volume 29 Issue 1, 2017, p. 128 – 139

Abstract

None

Plain-language contracts: challenges and opportunities

Plain-language contracts: challenges and opportunities

Authors Elizabeth de Stadler, Liezl van Zyl

ISSN: 1996-2185
Affiliations: Director, Novation Consulting (Pty) Ltd, and Senior Associate Esselaar Attorneys; Manager: Communication Design, Stellenbosch University Language Centre
Source: South African Mercantile Law Journal, Volume 29 Issue 1, 2017, p. 95 – 127

Abstract

South African consumers have had the right to plain-language consumer contracts since 2011. However, five years later, the approach to drafting plain-language, consumer-facing legal documents is often still superficial and formulaic. The result is that consumers are still made vulnerable by poverty, illiteracy and a limited ability to understand the language in which consumer contracts are drafted. This leads to the social exclusion of a large part of the South African society, or a so-called Information Apartheid. Why has the right to plain language not translated into understandable language? We will argue that the roots of the problem can be found in the nature of the legal profession and a failure to merge the principles underlying sound legal practice with the linguistic principles of document and information design. There is an inherent tension between the principles of document design and the fundamentals of legal practice: effective document design requires that the audience and their needs lie at the heart of the approach to drafting, but, by comparison, legal professionals are paid to protect their clients against consumers. This adversarial legal framework creates a conflict of interest between legal writers and their readership. However, it also reflects a zero-sum understanding of complaint (or risk) management, and a failure to appreciate that writing in plain language can mitigate risk. What then is plain language and how can it be achieved, given these challenges? The definition of plain language in section 22 of the Consumer Protection Act requires that contracts be understood by the ‘ordinary consumer of the class of persons’ [for] whom’ the contract is written. However, the plain-language movement has been undermined by the fact that the legal profession is unaccustomed (and often ill-equipped) to write with the reader in mind. This is because the skill set required to truly achieve reader-friendly contracts, while still managing the supplier’s risk, is inter-disciplinary; it requires knowledge not only of the law, but also of document-design principles and the tools which document designers use to understand the consumer.

Bypassing unions during collective bargaining and the right to freedom of expression

Bypassing unions during collective bargaining and the right to freedom of expression

Authors Mlungisi Ernest Tenza

ISSN: 1996-2185
Affiliations: Lecturer, School of Law, University of KwaZulu-Natal
Source: South African Mercantile Law Journal, Volume 29 Issue 1, 2017, p. 66 – 94

Abstract

The question of whether an employer can directly address striking employees about the outcome of negotiations is a concern to labour unions. This is because unions consider this conduct as constituting an unreasonable limitation of the right to freedom of association and collective bargaining. On the other hand, employers view any attempt to prohibit them from communicating directly with workers as an unjustifiable limitation of their right to freedom of expression. The argument continues to say that South Africa’s industrial sector is currently experiencing violent strikes. If employers could be allowed to bypass trade unions and directly address employees on strike, the workers will be divided as some will accept the revised offer, while others will not. Those workers that accept the offer will return to work as the reason for their strike would have ended. However, when workers offer their services while others are on strike, friction arises and consequently violence erupts. Allowing employers to communicate directly with striking employees fuels tension among workers and does not serve the purpose of the Labour Relations Act1 (LRA), namely the advancement of labour peace and the democratisation of the workplace.

Copyright in traditional works: unravelling the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Act of 2013

Copyright in traditional works: unravelling the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Act of 2013

Authors Sunelle Geyer

ISSN: 1996-2185
Affiliations: Associate Professor, Department of Mercantile Law, University of South Africa
Source: South African Mercantile Law Journal, Volume 29 Issue 1, 2017, p. 43 – 65

Abstract

The lengthy ss 3—6 of the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Act 28 of 2013 (IPLAA) contain complicated changes to the Copyright Act 98 of 1978. This paper simplifies the task of coming to grips with the amendments to the Copyright Act by explaining and clarifying that the concepts ‘indigenous works’ and ‘derivative indigenous works’ are the objects that these amendments seek to protect. The article then unpacks the rules and principles pertaining to indigenous works and derivative indigenous works respectively: legal subjects, duration of protection, requirements, registration, assignment and exceptions are all analysed and moral rights receive substantial attention throughout. The said topics are applied to a Volkspele example, followed by certain conclusions. The article highlights the major stumbling blocks to the IPLAA, namely the principles of both national treatment and territoriality.