A suggested
template for beneficiary nominations
M F B Reinecke and P M Nienaber
SA Merc LJ - 2009, v.21(1), p.1
The regulation of
conflict situations relating to share capital
Kathleen van der Linde
SA Merc LJ - 2009, v.21(1), p.33
The challenges of
taxing investments in offshore hybrid entities : a South African
perspective
Annet Wanyana Oguttu
SA Merc LJ - 2009, v.21(1), p.51
The role of a
modern central bank in managing consumer bankruptcies and corporate
failures : a South African public-law angle of incidence
Bernard Bekink and Christo Botha
SA Merc LJ - 2009, v.21(1), p.74
Affirmative action
: the sword versus shield debate continues
Neil Coetzer
SA Merc LJ - 2009, v.21(1), p.92
Security for costs
in corporate litigation and the right of access to courts - Giddey
NO v J Barnard and Partners
Stephanie Luiz and Zuene Taljaard
SA Merc LJ - 2009, v.21(1), p.102
SMS and e-mail
contracts - Jafta v Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife
Philip Stoop
SA Merc LJ - 2009, v.21(1), p.110
The bloody-handed,
homicidal beneficiary and the materialisation of the life insurance
risk - Daniel NO v De Wet and Another
J P van Niekerk
SA Merc LJ - 2009, v.21(1), p.126
Book Reviews
Mars : the law of
insolvency in South Africa
Eberhard Bertelsmann . . . [et al]
SA Merc LJ - 2009, v.21(1), p.138
Environmental law
/ Michael Kidd
Jeannie van Wyk
SA Merc LJ - 2009, v.21(1), p.141
Rights for all :
the South African Bill of Rights in all official language / Juta's
Statutes editors
David Taylor
SA Merc LJ - 2009, v.21(1), p.142
See also :
Constitutional
Court of South Africa
1 September 2006
CCT
65/05
Giddey NO vs J C Barnard and Partners
This case concerns the interpretation and application of Section 13 of
the Companies Act, 61 of 1973, which vests a court with a discretion
to order a company that institutes action to furnish security for
costs if there is reason to believe that it will be unable to pay the
costs of its opponent
[InfoUpdate 33 of
2006]
Labour Court.
Durban
1 July 2008
D204/07
[2008] ZALC 84
Jafta v Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife
Does acceptance of an offer of employment sent by e-mail or short
message service (SMS) result in a valid contract? When is an
acceptance of an offer sent by e-mail or SMS received? Is an SMS an
electronic communication? What is an electronic communication? To
answer these electronic commerce or e-commerce questions that arise in
this claim for contractual damages, the court looks to the Electronic
Communications Transactions Act No 25 of 2002
[InfoUpdate 29 of
2008]