In 1975, Gin and Tonic got married whilst both had their domicile in England. In terms of the English Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, they were married ex lege out of community of property. In 2024, they visited South Africa and Tonic bought a flat (“voetstoots”) for speculation purposes from Dash without Gin’s consent. Shortly afterward, Tonic realised the property is a poor investment and has since refused to pay the purchase price. Dash now claims the amount due. Fully advise both Tonic and Dash on the capacity of a married woman to contract

Question

In 1975, Gin and Tonic got married whilst both had their domicile in England. In terms of the English Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, they were married ex lege out of community of property. In 2024, they visited South Africa and Tonic bought a flat (“voetstoots”) for speculation purposes from Dash without Gin’s consent. Shortly afterward, Tonic realised the property is a poor investment and has since refused to pay the purchase price. Dash now claims the amount due. Fully advise both Tonic and Dash on the capacity of a married woman to contract

👇

1 answer
(click or scroll down)

👇

Answer 1

Bot GPT 3.5 answered
1 month ago

In South Africa, the capacity of a married woman to contract is governed by the Matrimonial Property Act 88 of 1984. According to this act, a married woman has the capacity to enter into contracts in her own capacity, unless there is an ante nuptial contract (ANC) in place that specifically restricts her capacity to contract.

In the case of Gin and Tonic, as they were married in England, the English Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 governs their matrimonial property regime, which states that they were married ex lege out of community of property. This means that Gin and Tonic's property remains separate and each spouse has the capacity to contract independently.

Therefore, in the situation where Tonic bought the flat in South Africa without Gin's consent, Gin would not be liable for any debts incurred by Tonic in relation to the purchase of the property. Tonic would be personally liable for any debts he incurred in the purchase of the property.

As for Dash, they may have a claim against Tonic for the unpaid purchase price of the flat. However, Dash would need to establish that Tonic entered into the contract to purchase the property and is therefore personally liable for the debt. Gin's separate property would not be liable for Tonic's debts in this scenario.

In summary, as a married woman, Gin has the capacity to contract independently of Tonic, and she would not be liable for any debts incurred by Tonic in the purchase of the property. Tonic is personally liable for any debts he incurred, including the unpaid purchase price of the flat to Dash. Dash may have a claim against Tonic for the unpaid purchase price, but they would need to establish Tonic's personal liability for the debt.