About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

75 S. African L.J. 32 (1958)
Degrees of Invalidity

handle is hein.journals/soaf75 and id is 42 raw text is: DEGREES OF INVALIDITY Mr. Turpin has made a valuable contribution towards our understanding the nature of void and voidable acts and particularly to the problem of the so-called retroactive ratification of void acts.' He has not, however, in my opinion provided, what is admittedly called for, a 'settled and uniform terminology ' for dealing with these matters.' This is because he has failed to notice that there are more than. two ways in which contracts or other acts may be invalid and that it is desirable to have different words for these varying shades of inxalidity. The simple dichotomy of 'void' and 'voidable' is not adequate to describe the various subtle ways in which the law refuses to a greater or less extent to give effect to contracts, marriages and other juristic acts. Failure to perceive this leads Turpin to the paradoxical conclusion that though in Edelstein v. Edelstein' the Appellate Division described the unassisted contract of a minor as 'null and void in one direction of its operation and valid in another.',' it would have made no difference legally if the court had described it as voidable. Of course, the most eminent judges may be mistaken in thinking a distinction exists where there is none, but it is also possible that the Appellate Division was applying a distinction which Mr. Turpin has overlooked. Perhaps the simplest approach to the analysis of defective contracts and other acts is to set out the various possible legal effects of an invalid transaction. I concentrate on contracts and begin with a simple unilateral contract, such as a promise of a gift. If A promises B £100 this promise may have one of the following effects: . (a) it may bind A; (b) it may bind -A but subject ,to A's power to release himself from the obligation; (c) it may not bind A at all. An example of (a) would be the ordinary offer of £100 by a donor duly accepted by a donee. An example of (b) would be an offer ,of £100 duly accepted by the donee who subsequently is guilty of gross ingratitude, entitling the donor to revoke the donation. An example of (c) would be the offer of £100 by a husband to his wife during the currency of the marriage, and accepted 1y her. The difference between (b) and (c) is that in (c) the donor is not boupd whereas in (b) he is bound but can release himself by some 'Void afid Voidable Acts', 72 (1955) S.AL.I. 58 esp. at 63-4. 2p. 69. 31952 (3) S.A. 1 -(A.D.). 4 Edelstem v. Edelsteirl (smpra) at 10, per van den Heever, J.A. 32

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most