No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Altruism in Private Law: Liability for Nonfeasance and Negotiorum Gestio by Jeroen Kortmann Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005, xxiii + 191 + (select bibliography + index) 11 pp (£50.00 hardback). ISBN 0 19 9280053.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 January 2018
Abstract
An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Book Review
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Society of Legal Scholars 2005
References
1. DH van Zyl ‘Unjustified Enrichment and Restitution: An Awakening Giant Creates Confusion’ (1996) 21 Journal for Juridical Science (Tydskrifvir Regswetenskap) 1.
2. DH van Zyl Negotiorum Gestio in South African Law (London: Butterworths, 1985) ch 5 at pp 84-1 18. See also NR Whitty and DH van ZyI ‘Unauthorised Management of Affairs (Negotiorum Gestio)’ in R Zimmermann, D Visser and K Reid (eds) Mixedkgal Systems in Comparative Perspective (Cape Town: Juta, 2005) pp 388-398, where the unjustified enrichment cases are discussed
3. In the United States the negotiorum gestor has been vituperatively described as an ‘officious’, ‘altruistic’ or ‘self-serving intermeddler’. See J P Dawson ‘Negotiorum Gestio: The Altruistic Intermeddler’ (196W61) 74 Harv LR 817 and 1073; ‘The Self-serving Intermeddler’ (1974) 87 Harv LR 1409. The state of Louisiana represents an exception in that its Civil Code is based on the French Code Civil and provides for a ‘quasi contract resuiting from the management of anothers affairs’ in sections 2295-2300.
4. [1996] 3 All ER 801 at 819.
5. I Kant The Metaphysics of Morals (trans M Gregor) (Cambridge: Cambridge Universty Press, 1991). The author refers also to passages from J Bentham An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789) and J S Mill On Liberty (1859).
6. [1996] 3 All ER 801 at 809. The author refers also to the unpublished South African thesis of K J Kemp Delictual Liabiliyfor Omissions (University of Port Elizabeth, 1978) p 386.
7. See CO Gregory ‘The Good Samaritan and the Bad’ in J M Ratcliffe (ed) The Good Samaritan and the Law (New York: Anchor Books, 1966) pp 23-41 at p 33.
8. Inch 3.4 at pp 18-23 he discusses certain economic arguments regarding liability in such cases. He follows this up (inch 3.5 at p 23) with observations on the law not rewarding the performance of affirmative duties.
9. AM Honor6 ‘Are Omissions less Culpable?’ in P Cane and J Stapleton (eds) Essays for Patrick Atiyah (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991) p 3 Iff at 41, discussed in chs 3.6 and 3.7 at pp 24-28.
10. See P Olivier ‘The Tortification of Contract’ (2000) Acta Juridica 283. In similar vein is D Visser and D Kleyn ‘The Borderline between Delict and Enrichment’ (2000) Acta Juridica 300.
11. DH van Zyl ‘Negotiorum Gestio and Wrongs’ (2000) Acta Juridica 329, with special reference to Montres Rolex SA v Kleynhans 1985 (1) SA 55 (C).
12. [1964] AC 465.
13. [1995] 2 AC 145.
14. At p 67 the author refers to the use of these words in the unreported decision of Musgrave v The Chief Constable of Hampshire (10 February 1999), CA.