Article Sidebar
Published:
Apr 29, 2024Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright in all material published in PER/PELJ vests in the author, provided that authors grant, by submission of their contributions, permission that their contributions may be shared and adapted without restriction. An author furthermore agrees that the same contribution may not be published elsewhere without the written permission of the editor.
Anyone gaining access, electronically or otherwise, to a contribution to PER, may quote from such contribution, use the intellectual content thereof, share and adapt it, but subject to the following conditions:
you must give appropriate credit, provide a link and indicate if changes were made; and
the copyright of the author(s) may not be infringed in any way.
Main Article Content
Repackaging the General Prejudice Principle in Suretyship Agreements as a Breach of Contract under South African Law
Abstract
Historically, if a creditor through his conduct prejudiced or injured a surety in the latter's rights or interest, the surety was entitled to claim release from his obligations under the general prejudice principle. However, the principle was summarily rejected by the Supreme Court of Appeal in Bock v Dubororo Investments (Pty) Ltd 2004 2 SA 242 (SCA), and it may now be determined whether there exists another interpretation in order to ensure its survival. This article considers the historical application of the general prejudice principle in suretyship agreements under South African law since the principle’s original incorporation from the English law up until its outright rejection by the Supreme Court of Appeal in Bock. It then aims to reinterpret the principle in the light of ordinary contract law principles as being nothing more than a breach of contract by the creditor.
