Kontrakbreuk en nie-vermoënskade : geld die gesegde "belofte maak skuld" nie vir gekwetste gevoelens en psigiese besering nie?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Breach of contract and non-patrimonial damages: does the adage one's promises ring true injuries to feelings and mental distress as well? Twenty years ago Van Heerden JA imposed a prohibition in the (then) highest South African court in the case of Administrator, Natal v Edouard on the recourse of non-patrimonial damages ex contractu. With this finding the court reinforced the traditional view that all contracts are of a monetary nature and that the invasion of personality rights resorts under delictual liability. This approach does not, however, reflect trends in modern society. If non-compliance with for mental and psychological life experiences are not being compensated, it exposes a lacuna in the law that needs to be addressed to prevent considerable injustice. As a consequence, the pronouncement in Administrator, Natal v Edouard has not only stifled legal development, but also left the South African law poorer. The aim of this article is to proffer a simple solution to issues of injured feelings and mental distress within the orthodox rules of contract law. The cardinal question to be asked is: What was promised in the contract? This relatively simple basis of explanation runs like a golden thread through other legal systems subjected to scrutiny. In England there has been a subtle change in tenor from the classification (and more or less ban) of the type of mental injury to the compensation of a frustrated right to a contractual performance (whether it be tangible or not) by the house of lords in Farley v Skinner (2001). A more overt stance is taken by the supreme court of Canada. In Fidler v Sun Life Assurance (2006), and confirmed in Keays v Honda Canada (2008), an outright recognition of an independent rule allowing claims non-patrimonial damages upon breach of contract is prominent. Even in France the courts and writers have interpreted the general civil liability and non cumul of the French Civil Code in such a way that dommages moraux are freely available in instances of breach of a contractually bargained non-patrimonial advantage. In Louisiana (United States of America) the recoverability of non-pecuniary damages breach of contract was pertinently codified. Section 1998 stipulates that non-pecuniary damages can be claimed if the very essence of the contract aims at fulfilling a moral interest, whether known to or foreseen by the defendant, but there is a failure to comply. The conclusion reached is that parties to a contract are absolutely bound by the contractual duties undertaken (whether these be patrimonial or non-patrimonial) and that they have to fulfil all their obligations in terms of the contract (pacta sunt servanda). Promises are there to keep - applicable to injured feelings and mental distress as well.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".