MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W157918589

Pacta commissoria (vervalbedinge) en pandreg : aantekeninge

2010· article· af· W157918589 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
S. M. Scott

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of South African Law / Tydskrif vir die Suid-Afrikaanse Reg · 2010
Typearticle
Languageaf
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Issues in South Africa
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTheologyPhilosophyArtPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Die regspraak en die daaropvolgende onlangse literatuur oor die geldigheid en effek van pacta commissoria by pandreg maak dit duidelik dat hierdie aspek van die saaklike sekerheidsreg in die Suid-Afrikaanse reg 'n sekere mate van onsekerheid en onduidelikheid vertoon. (Sien Mapenduka v Ashington 1919 AD 343; Sun Life Assurance Co of Canada v Kuranda 1924 AD 20; Graf v Buechel 2003 4 SA 378 (HHA); Bock v Duburoro (Pty) Ltd 2003 4 All SA 103 (HHA); Citibank NA v Thandroyen Fruit Wholesalers CC 2007 6 SA 110 (HHA) wat eersgenoemde betref en vir laasgenoemde Badenhorst, Pienaar en Mostert Silberberg and Schoeman's The Law of Property (2006) 368; Schulze Parate executie, pacta commissoria, banks and mortgage bonds 2004 De Jure 256, Parate executie and public policy. The supreme court of appeal provides further guidelines 2005 Obiter 710 716.) Handboeke behandel die onderwerp grotendeels kursories en onbevredigend. Talle fasette van hierdie onderwerp moet na my mening egter verder oordink en beredeneer word. 'n Pactum commissorium (vervalbeding; ook bekend as 'n lex commissoria - lex word hier nie in die betekenis van wet nie, maar in die betekenis van gebruik; sien Verhagen 67) is 'n beding in die sekerheidsooreenkoms ingevolge waarvan die skuldeiser by wanbetaling deur die skuldenaar eiendomsreg van die pandsaak verkry. Voor ek tot die bespreking van die Suid-Afrikaanse regsposisie oorgaan, wil ek daarop wys dat enige verdere navorsing of uitsprake oor vervalbedinge na my mening gebrekkig sal wees as daar nie van Verhagen se bovermelde artikel kennis geneem word nie. Hierdie omvattende regshistoriese en regsvergelykende bespreking van die aangeleentheid is nie alleen 'n voortreflike regsbron vir hierdie afdeling van saaklike sekerheidsreg nie, maar behoort ook 'n inspirasiebron vir menige akademici te wees - tegelykertyd, vanwee die omvang en deeglikheid daarvan, is dit ook uiters intimiderend. Twee appelhofuitsprake, Mapenduka v Ashington en Graf v Buechel, dien as aanknopingspunte vir enkele gedagtes wat ek oor die onderwerp vir bespreking wil oopstel. As uitgangspunt neem ek die uitspraak in die Graf-saak.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.103
Threshold uncertainty score0.205

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.005
Scholarly communication0.0080.006
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0080.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0270.004

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.274 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of South African Law / Tydskrif vir die Suid-Afrikaanse RegSame topicLegal Issues in South AfricaFrench-language works237,207