The Future of Robo-Advisors in the South African Insurance Industry: Is the South African Regulatory Framework Ready?

by | Feb 26, 2021 | SAMLJ, SAMLJ V32 I2

The Future of Robo-Advisors in the South African Insurance Industry: Is the South African Regulatory Framework Ready?

Author: Samantha Huneberg

ISSN: 1996-2185
Affiliations: Lecturer in Mercantile Law, University of Johannesburg
Source: South African Mercantile Law Journal, Volume 32 Issue 2, 2020, p. 175 – 204
https://doi.org/10.47348/SAMLJ/v32/i2a1

Abstract

Insurance industries worldwide currently face disruption in many forms. Technology and artificial intelligence are changing the way we know and transact insurance. One way that technology is impacting insurance is through the use of robo-advisors. Robo-advisors provide automated advice to customers based on algorithms built into the software. This means that many people can now access insurance products at the click of a button. The previous dominant role of intermediaries and advisors in the insurance industry are not as significant in the procuring of insurance products as they used to be. Robo-advisors are able to provide on-demand advice at a lower price and with greater efficacy than their human counterpart. Many industry professionals welcome this change but there is a fear that the technology may render humans obsolete. The current regulatory framework in South Africa is relatively open to the use of automated advice and the future regulations appear to be pro-technology and innovation. This should allow for substantial growth in the insurance industry. Robo-advising should, therefore, play a more active role in procuring insurance products and maintaining these products. In terms of the current regulatory framework in South African insurance law, the question arises as to whether the regulatory framework accommodates the use of robo-advisors.

Retirement Funds Rivalry, Voluntary Withdrawal of Membership, and Transfer of Assets During the Period of Employment

by | Feb 26, 2021 | SAMLJ, SAMLJ V32 I2

Retirement Funds Rivalry, Voluntary Withdrawal of Membership, and Transfer of Assets During the Period of Employment

Author: Clement Marumoagae

ISSN: 1996-2185
Affiliations: Senior lecturer, School of Law, University of the Witwatersrand
Source: South African Mercantile Law Journal, Volume 32 Issue 2, 2020, p. 205 – 233
https://doi.org/10.47348/SAMLJ/v32/i2a2

Abstract

In Municipal Employees Pension Fund v Natal Joint Municipal Pension Fund (Superannuation) & others [2016] 4 All SA 761 (SCA) para 2, Theron JA described the competition for members by different retirement funds associated with the same employer as a ‘turf war’. The Office of the Pension Funds Adjudicator and the South African courts are continually required to adjudicate disputes that arise when retirement funds wrestle each other for members. This article shows that the Pension Funds Act 24 of 1956 does not provide the necessary legal framework that can assist courts to resolve these disputes, which usually turn on the interpretation of individual retirement funds’ rules that are often ambiguous. Further, there is no legislative provision that adequately deals with the circumstances where actively employed members voluntarily initiate a process that will lead to their fund credits being transferred to rival retirement funds. It argues that there is a need for legislative clarity on how voluntary transfer of fund credits impact on the membership of retirement funds, particularly given the fact that, strictly speaking, members cannot be transferred from one fund to the next, whereas their fund credits can, in terms of section 14 of the PFA. Since members cannot be transferred, this article evaluates whether it is sound in law for actively employed employees to remain members of one fund but contribute to a rival fund.

The Role and Nature of the Public Interest in South African Competition Law

by | Feb 26, 2021 | SAMLJ, SAMLJ V32 I2

The Role and Nature of the Public Interest in South African Competition Law

Author: Quentin du Plessis

ISSN: 1996-2185
Affiliations: Pupil member of the Johannesburg Bar
Source: South African Mercantile Law Journal, Volume 32 Issue 2, 2020, p. 234 – 252
https://doi.org/10.47348/SAMLJ/v32/i2a3

Abstract

The Competition Act 89 of 1998 requires consideration of the ‘public interest’ when considering mergers. Whereas public interest considerations are generally assumed not to be cognisable in competition terms, in this article I argue the opposite. Specifically, I argue that if the underlying policy goal of the Act is accepted to be economic efficiency as opposed to allocative efficiency, and if ‘public interest’ as it is used in the Act is understood to be concerned mainly with the reduction of inequality, then it follows that the public interest is cognisable in competition terms, since inequality hurts economic efficiency.

Appraising the Scope and Application of the Market-Price Rule in Upheld Contracts

by | Feb 26, 2021 | SAMLJ, SAMLJ V32 I2

Appraising the Scope and Application of the Market-Price Rule in Upheld Contracts

Author: Paul Nkoane

ISSN: 1996-2185
Affiliations: Lecturer in Criminal and Procedural Law, University of South Africa
Source: South African Mercantile Law Journal, Volume 32 Issue 2, 2020, p. 253 – 276
https://doi.org/10.47348/SAMLJ/v32/i2a4

Abstract

The use of the market price for determining liability in contract lacks dedicated attention in South African law. Even far scanter is the holistic literature on the use of the market-price rule in contracts that are not terminated on breach of contract. Although, there has been suggestions that the market-price rule can be used to determine damages in upheld contracts, this was never technically demonstrated. Thus, the argument that the market-price rule can be used in contracts that are not terminated remains moot. This article presents various methods that illustrate how the market-price rule should apply in upheld contracts. The article undertakes a comprehensive analysis of the market-price rule to determine its efficacy in contracts that are not terminated, with the focus on the determination of the degree of liability. Regarding the determination of liability, the article to some extent discusses contracts with latent defects and those with items of questionable quality. Various methods and techniques are discussed to enlighten about how the market price can affect the determination of liability in upheld contracts, and to illustrate that this principle is suitable for determining damages in contracts that are not terminated.

Analysis: Accommodation Establishments and the Cancellation of Advance Bookings: The Challenge of Determining a Reasonable Cancellation Fee

by | Feb 26, 2021 | SAMLJ, SAMLJ V32 I2

Accommodation Establishments and the Cancellation of Advance Bookings: The Challenge of Determining a Reasonable Cancellation Fee

Authors: AM Tait

ISSN: 1996-2185
Affiliations: Nelson Mandela University
Source: South African Mercantile Law Journal, Volume 32 Issue 2, 2020, p. 277 – 294
https://doi.org/10.47348/SAMLJ/v32/i2a5

Abstract

None