The Capacity Provisions in the Companies Act 71 of 2008

The Capacity Provisions in the Companies Act 71 of 2008

Author: Etienne A Olivier

ISSN: 1996-2193
Affiliations: LLB LLM, Lecturer, University of the Western Cape
Source: Stellenbosch Law Review, Volume 31 Issue 3, 2020, p. 526 – 547

Abstract

This article analyses the capacity provisions in the Companies Act 71 of 2008 (the “Act”). According to section 20(1) of the Act, ultra vires contracts are not void; the application of this rule should not depend on the title of the company’s representative. It should be possible to restrain proposed ultra vires action and executory ultra vires contracts by means of section 20(5). However, wholly executed ultra vires contracts should be irreversible on capacity grounds. Furthermore, once an ultra vires contract has been ratified by a special resolution in terms of section 20(2), the company’s insiders should lose the right to restrain the contract in terms of section 20(5); conversely, successful restraint should prevent subsequent ratification. The authority of the board of a limited capacity company should still be limited to the conclusion of intra vires acts, regardless of the validity of ultra vires contracts. The purpose of the optional RF provisions and the capacity-linked statutory doctrine of constructive notice is not clear: section 19(5)(a) does not provide any obvious benefit to limited capacity RF companies with regards to avoiding liability on an ultra vires contract. In conclusion, the capacity provisions create too much uncertainty and risk for a company’s existing and future creditors and should be amended.

The Validity of Surrogacy Facilitation Agreements: [An Analysis of Ex Parte HPP; Ex Parte DME [2017] 2 All SA 171 (GP)]

The Validity of Surrogacy Facilitation Agreements: [An Analysis of Ex Parte HPP; Ex Parte DME [2017] 2 All SA 171 (GP)]

Author: Themba Skosana

ISSN: 1996-2193
Affiliations: LLB LLM (UNISA), Senior Lecturer, Department of Private Law, University of South Africa
Source: Stellenbosch Law Review, Volume 31 Issue 3, 2020, p. 548 – 558

Abstract

Commercial surrogacy is prohibited in South Africa. In Ex parte HPP, the court dealt with a surrogate facilitation agreement which was tainted by an illegal surrogate motherhood agreement as a result of payments of surrogate facilitation fees. The court applied contract law principles to justify confirmation of the two surrogate motherhood agreements and to avoid the penal provisions of the Children’s Act applicable to such illegality. This article argues that this is the incorrect approach and that the court must focus on the provisions of the Act that, except for specific situations, forbid payments in connection with the confirmation or execution of surrogate agreements.