Question 1

To answer this question, we must ask ourselves two questions. Firstly, we must
determine whether Princess has breached the contract of engagement. Secondly, are
there any legal remedies that Iggy can use against Princess?
A breach in the promise to marry arises when one of the parties calls the engagement
off without an iusta causa. We must therefore determine, if Princess has an iusta causa
to ending the engagement. Princess claims that the reason she can not continue with
the marriage is because the prospects of a marriage between her and Iggy are not
good, she also claims to have fallen in love with another man. In Van Jaarsveld v
Bridges the Court held that “[t]here is no reason why a just cause for ending an
engagement should not include the lack of desire to marry the person”, this therefore
gives Princess an iusta causa. We can then conclude that Iggy does not have a
contractual claim against Princess, this as Princess is not in breach of the contract of
engagement.
There is however, a second option that we must explore. Does Iggy have a delictual
claim against Princess? The court in Van Jaarsveld held that for to claim under actio
iniuriarum, the plaintiff must prove that the way in which the engagement was ended
infringed on the personality rights of the plaintiff. The court also found that ending an
engagement via text was not insulting. In the facts Princess does send a Whatsapp to
Iggy-which does not give rise to a delict- but she does this after posting about the
matter in public. Posting about the ending of the engagement could result in Iggy
being publicly embarrassed and this will give rise to a claim under actio iniuriarum.
Iggy therefore does have a legal remedy to use to make a claim against Princess,
however this claim is not for breaking of the engagement but is for breaking it of in a
publicly embarrassing and insulting manner.

Question 2
If Iggy has a claim against Princess for breaking the engagement, we can safely
assume that Princess does not have an iusta causa and is therefore in breach of
contract.
In Guggenheim v Rosenbaum the court held that there should be two distinct claims,
contractual claims a delictual claims.
The contractual claims are divided into two separate claims: positive interess and
negative interess. The claim of positive interess is one that would serve to place the
plaintiff in the position that they would have been had they entered into a marriage,
this claim is however no longer available in our law, this as the court in Van Jaarsveld
v Bridges held that “ Courts should not involve themselves with speculation by
permitting claims for prospective losses”. Negative interess is a claim for actual
losses, the plaintiff can claim for monetary claims for all that was lost in preparation
for the wedding. This claim serves to place the plaintiff in the same position that the
plaintiff was in before the engagement, the plaintiff therefore must prove what they
lost in preparing for the wedding. Under this claim Iggy can claim for the money she
spent on the accommodation, venue and catering.
In order to have a delictual claim against Princess, Iggy must show that the way the
engagement was called off was insulting and infringed on his personality rights. This
could include hurting his feelings, his pride or even embarrassing him in public.
Princess before texting Iggy revealed to the whole world that she was breaking up
with Iggy, this can be seen as causing embarrassment to Iggy in public thus raising the
claim of actio iniuriarum.
There are some gifts that are also in contention. Gifts that are exchanged during an
engagement are divided into three categories: Sponsalitiae largitas (appliances for use
in future marital home), Arrhae Sponsalitiae (Symbols of promise) and
Inconsequential (small tokens of affections). Since Princess does not have an iusta
causa, Iggy is the innocent party. With regards to the Sponsalitiae, Iggy can keep the
luxury apartment and all the furniture in the house. The rings that they exchanged fall
under Arrhae Sponsalitiae and the rule that governs these gifts says that the innocent
party can keep the ring with the guilty party must return it, Iggy can therefore keep the
ring that Princess gave him and he can claim the ring that he gave Princess.

Question 3
The presumption of paternity in respect of children born out of wedlock is regulated
by section 36 of the Children’s Act 38 of 2005 which provides the following “ If in
any legal proceeding in which it is necessary to prove that any particular person is the
father of a child born out of wedlock it is proved that, that person had sexual
intercourse with the mother of the child at any time when that chid could have been
conceived, that person is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary which raises a
reasonable doubt, presumed to be the biological father of the child.” Since Princess is
only 4 months pregnant and their relationship has only been over for two weeks, it is
safe to presume that the two has sexual intercourse during the gestation period.
The court held in YM v LB that “the court as the upper guardian of children can order
scientific test to determine the paternity of the child, if it is in the best interest of the
child.” Section 37 of the Children’s Act also allows for the use of scientific test to
determine the paternity of the child. Iggy can ask the court for a paternity test, but it
will only be approved if the court finds that it is in the best interest of the child to do
so.
Section 37 also deals with what happens if a person refuses to undergo scientific tests.
The Act says that the person must be informed how this might impact their credibility.
The supreme court also notes that subjecting people to such tests might infringe on
their rights but also reminds us that some rights may be limited under section 36 of the
Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996.
Question 4
An important part of the consortium omnis vitae is the responsibility to provide
reciprocal support. This is an invariable consequence of marriage meaning that it can
no be avoided by any party to the marriage. Another important part of the consortium
omnis vitae is cohabitation and souses have the right to live in the marital home.
The duty of support does not end when spouses live apart, this according to the court
in the matter of Gammon v McClure. There is however an exception to this rule, and
this is when one of the spouses leave the marital home without reason or is forced to
leave the marital home because of the actions of the other spouse. In this case the
spouse who is I the wrong still pays support while the innocent party does not. The
duty to support will however remain intact if there was a mutual agreement between
the parties.
In the facts given it does not mention the reasons as to why Princess leaves the marital
home and it does not mention that Iggy did something that forced Princess to leave the
maital home, we therefore, will presume that this was a mutual agreement between the
parties and that the duty to support remains intact.
Because Iggy still has a duty to support Princess, but Sipiwe has been left to take this
responsibility on his behalf, Siphiwe has a claim of Negotiorum gestio. This as the
expenses that he incurred on behalf of Iggy were necessary and useful, he incurred
these expenses doing something that Iggy should be responsible for, he did so in a
reasonable manner, he did with the intention of managing the affairs of Iggy rather
than for his personal gain and Iggy is not said to have known and forbidden the
transactions.