dc.contributor.advisor |
|
|
dc.contributor.author |
Wiese, Mitzi
|
|
dc.date.accessioned |
2018-01-25T12:51:54Z |
|
dc.date.available |
2018-01-25T12:51:54Z |
|
dc.date.issued |
2013 |
|
dc.identifier.citation |
Wiese, M “A comparison between a right of retention (lien) in South African law and het retentierecht before and after the enactment of the current Dutch Burgerlijk Wetboek” CILSA vol XLVI 2013 273-285 |
en |
dc.identifier.issn |
00104051 |
|
dc.identifier.uri |
http://hdl.handle.net/10500/23559 |
|
dc.description.abstract |
South African law distinguishes between enrichment liens and debtor and creditor
liens. The former are generally classified as real rights and the latter are not. This
position is similar to the position in Dutch law before the enactment of the current
BW, where retentierechten (liens) were divided into zakenrechtelijke retentierechten
and verbintenisrechtelijke retentierechten. The former enjoyed real operation while
the latter did not. Even though most authors are of the opinion that neither
zakenrechtelijke retentierechten nor verbintenisrechtelijke retentierechten qualified
as either real or personal rights, there were some authors who regarded
zakenrechtelijke retentierechten as real rights. The current BW did away with the
uncertainty regarding the nature of a lien. There is no longer a distinction between
different types of lien. Article 3:290–3:295 BW deals with retentierechten and
classifies a lien as a verhaalsrecht (right of redress) and a specific opschortingsrecht
(right to suspend). |
en |
dc.language.iso |
en |
en |
dc.publisher |
CILSA |
en |
dc.subject |
lien |
en |
dc.subject |
retentierecht |
en |
dc.subject |
right of retention |
en |
dc.subject |
Dutch Burgerlijk Wetboek |
en |
dc.subject |
retensiereg |
en |
dc.title |
A comparison between a right of retention (lien) in South African law and het retentierecht before and after the enactment of the current Dutch Burgerlijk Wetboek |
en |
dc.type |
Article |
en |
dc.description.department |
Private Law |
en |