ITEM VIEW

The duty of care and skill, and reckless trading : remedies in flux

dc.contributor.authorStevens, Richarden_ZA
dc.contributor.authorDe Beer, Philipen_ZA
dc.date.accessioned2020-07-02T07:36:03Z
dc.date.available2020-07-02T07:36:03Z
dc.date.issued2016-06
dc.identifier.citationStevens, R. & De Beer, P. 2016. The duty of care and skill, and reckless trading : remedies in flux. SA Mercantile Law Journal 28(2):250-284.en_ZA
dc.identifier.issn1996-2185 (online)
dc.identifier.issn1015-0099 (print)
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10019.1/108693
dc.descriptionCITATION: Stevens, R. & De Beer, P. 2016. The duty of care and skill, and reckless trading : remedies in flux. SA Mercantile Law Journal 28(2):250-284.en_ZA
dc.descriptionThe original publication is available at https://journals.co.za/content/journal/jlc_samljen_ZA
dc.description.abstractIn terms of South African common law, directors of companies have two duties. First is fiduciary duties, which do not require fault for liability (a form of strict liability). Second is the duty of care and skill, which has always been accepted as delictual in nature. The rationale behind the duty of care and skill is to prevent those in charge of the management of the company from allowing it to act in a manner that could harm such a company. The law therefore utilises the law of delict to hold these company stewards to account, and to make good the harm suffered by the wronged party, being the company which such wrongdoers are managing. The Companies Act (‘the Act’) has to an extent codified the common law duty of care and skill of directors, and has confirmed that the liability for the breach of this duty is delictual in nature. South African company law further provides that a company’s business may not be conducted with gross negligence, ‘recklessly’ or fraudulently. In s 424 of the Companies Act 61 of 1973 (‘the 1973 Act’), any person could hold another person liable who essentially allowed the company to conduct business in a reckless manner. At face value, it appeared (and case law seems to have confirmed this) that the statutory remedy was intended primarily for creditors, and mostly utilised by such creditors when a company was in liquidation. Section 424 of the 1973 Act has been replaced by s 22(1), as read with section 77(3)(b) of the Act. The Act, however, also provides that Chapter XIV of the 1973 Act continues to apply in respect of the liquidation of insolvent companies.en_ZA
dc.publisherSA Mercantile Law Journalen_ZA
dc.publisherJuta and Companyen_ZA
dc.subjectReckless tradingen_ZA
dc.subjectDuty of careen_ZA
dc.subjectPublic lawen_ZA
dc.subjectLaw of delicten_ZA
dc.subjectSouth African company lawen_ZA
dc.titleThe duty of care and skill, and reckless trading : remedies in fluxen_ZA
dc.typeArticleen_ZA
dc.description.versionPublishers version
dc.rights.holderJuta and Companyen_ZA


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

ITEM VIEW