https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5176-8034
![Sample our Law journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5942/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Law.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
One of the many uses of comparative law is to examine the legal system of a foreign country in order to identify rules, procedures or institutions that work well, with a view to incorporating them into the domestic system. However, failure to appreciate the different context in which the law is to operate gives rise to unforeseen problems. This article employs examples from the law of contract in force in Pacific Island countries to illustrate the dangers of transplanting laws without giving due regard to existing laws. It commences with a brief explanation of the role of customary laws in state legal systems in the region. It examines a selection of cases where customary laws and transplanted contract laws have come face to face. It is argued that a pluralist approach offers the potential to move from state focussed law reform and to avoid the introduction of incompatible laws.
Acknowledgements
The author wishes to acknowledge valuable research assistance given by Ms Anna Kretowicz.
Notes
1 For a discussion of the hazards of the reception of statutes of general application in the Pacific see Jennifer Corrin, ‘Transplant Shock: The Hazards of Introducing Statutes of General Application’ in Vito Breda (ed), Legal transplants in East Asia and Oceania (Cambridge University Press 2019) 34. For a more general discussion of legal transplants see William Twining, ‘Diffusion of Law: A Global Perspective’ (2004) 36 Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law 1; Esin Orocu, ‘Law as Transposition’ (2002) 51 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 205; Pierre Legrand, ‘The Impossibility of “Legal Transplants”’ (1997) 4 Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 111.
2 See further Jean Zorn and Jennifer Corrin Care, ‘“Barava Tru”: Judicial Approaches to the Pleading and Proof of Custom in the South Pacific’ (2002) 51 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 611, 621–22.
3 The countries discussed are Papua New Guinea and those which are members of the University of the South Pacific, other than Marshall Islands. Reference is also made to case law from the Federated States of Micronesia.
4 For the extent of recognition in individual jurisdictions see further Jennifer Corrin and Don Paterson, Introduction to South Pacific Law (4th edn, Intersentia 2017) ch 3.
5 Constitution of Papua New Guinea 1975, sch 1.2.2(1); Underlying Law Act 2000, s 1(1).
6 Constitution of Samoa 1960, arts 101(2) and III(1).
7 Constitution of Solomon Islands 1978, ss 75, 76 and sch 3, para 3.
8 Constitution of Tokelau 2006, s 12(4); Tokelau Amendment Act 1996 (NZ), s 9; Custom as a Source of Law Rules 2004, r 2.
9 Constitution of Vanuatu 1980, arts 47(1) and 95(3).
10 Custom and Adopted Laws Act 1971, s 3.
11 Laws of Kiribati Act 1989, sch 1, para 4; Laws of Tuvalu Act 1987, sch 1, para 4.
12 Cook Islands Act 1915, s 422.
13 Native Lands Act 1915, c 133, s 3. The Constitution Amendment Act 1997 removed customary law as a general source of law and this remains the same under the Constitution of the Republic of Fiji 2013. See formerly Constitution of Fiji 1990, s 100.
14 Niue Amendment Act (no 2) 1968, s 23.
15 Whilst it is not recognised as a formal source of law by the state, custom is embedded in Tonga’s laws and governmental institutions: see eg Kenneth Brown, ‘Customary Law in the Pacific: An Endangered Species?’ (1990) 3 Journal of South Pacific Law 2. See further, Susan U Philips, ‘The Organization of Ideological Diversity in Discourse: Modern and neotraditional visions of the Tongan State’ (2004) 30 American Ethnologist 231, 235–44.
16 cf Pusi v Leni [1997] SBHC 100 (High Court of Solomon Islands (HCSI)), where Muria CJ stated that it should not automatically be assumed that the Constitution would override customary law, but that it would depend on the circumstances of the case.
17 See eg Pentecost Pacific Ltd and Phillippe Pentecost v Hnaloane (1980–88) 1 VLR 134 (Court of Appeal of Vanuatu (VCA)), where the Court of Appeal made it clear that customary law was not applicable where there was a relevant statute, particularly where that statute was passed by the Parliament of Vanuatu after independence. However, this may not be the case where the statute is not enacted by the local parliament: see K v T and KU [1985/6] SILR 49 (HCSI), where it was held that although local Acts were superior to common law, United Kingdom Acts were not.
18 Customs and Adopted Laws Act 1971, s 4.
19 Constitution of Solomon Islands 1978, sch 3, para 3(2).
20 Constitution of Papua New Guinea 1975, s 9(f). See eg Naki v AGC (Pacific) Ltd [2005] PGNC 163 (National Court of Papua New Guinea (PGNC)).
21 Underlying Law Act 2000 (PNG), ss 3(1) and 4.
22 Laws of Kiribati Act 1989, s 6(3)(b).
23 Laws of Tuvalu Act 1987, s 6(3)(b).
24 Laws of Kiribati Act 1989, sch 1, para 2; Laws of Tuvalu Act 1987, sch 1, para 2.
25 Cook Islands Act 1915, s 422.
26 Native Lands Act, c 133, s 3.
27 Niue Act 1966, s 23.
28 Custom as a Source of Law Rules 2004, r 2(4).
29 Constitution of Samoa, art 111(1).
30 Constitution of Vanuatu 1980, art 95(3).
31 ibid art 47(1).
32 Banga v Waiwo [1996] VUSC 5 (Supreme Court of Vanuatu (VSC)). This decision has been the subject of some criticism.
33 See eg Constitution of Solomon Islands 1978, sch 3, para 2(1)(b).
34 See eg Keboki Business Group (Inc) v State [1984] PNGLR 281 (PGNC), where the court commented on the failure of counsel to respond to an invitation to call evidence or make submissions in relation to customary law.
35 See eg Forest Resources and Timber Utilisation Act (Solomon Islands) 1996, c 40.
36 See eg Sukutaona v Houanihou [1982] SILR 12 (HCSI); Sasango v Beliga [1987] SILR 91 (HCSI).
37 The temptation to oversimplify the process was judicially recognised in Lilo v Ghomo [1980/81] SILR 229 (HCSI).
38 [1980–3] WSLR 468 (Supreme Court of Western Samoa (SCWS)).
39 ibid.
40 (Civ Cas 27/1990, 8 March 1996). The decision was upheld on appeal, except on quantum: Public Trustee of Fiji v Nair [1997] FJCA 55 (Court of Appeal of Fiji (FJCA)).
41 ibid.
42 [1987] FMPSC 6 (Pohnpei Supreme Court (PHSC)).
43 ibid.
44 As to whether such illegality would render the contact void, see Andrew Burrows, ‘Illegality after Patel v Mirza’ (2017) 70 Current Legal Problems 55.
45 See further, Jennifer Corrin Care, ‘Cultures in Conflict: The Role of the Common Law in the South Pacific’ (2002) 6 Journal of South Pacific Law <http://www.paclii.org/journals/fJSPL/vol06/2.shtml> accessed 02 January 2021.
46 See eg Cook Islands Act 1915 (NZ), s 615.
47 Success v Premier of Guadalcanal Province [2011] SBCA 19 (Court of Appeal of Solomon Islands (SICA)).
48 Constitution of Vanuatu 1980, art 95(2).
49 See eg Montgolfier v Nguyen [2016] VUCA 14 (VCA).
50 [1985] FMSC 3 (Supreme Court of the Federated States of Micronesia (FSMSC)).
51 Constitution of the Federated States of Micronesia, art XI, s 11. The Judicial Guidance Clause states that ‘Court decisions shall be consistent with this Constitution, Micronesian customs and traditions, and the social and geographical configuration of Micronesia’.
52 [1985] FMSC 3 (Supreme Court of the Federated States of Micronesia (FSMSC)).
53 Semens (n 50).
54 [1969] WSLR 214 (SCWS).
55 See further, Sanele Faasua Lavatai, The Ifoga Ritual in Samoa in Anthropological and in Biblical Perspectives (Missionshilfe Verlag 2018).
56 Lemalu (n 54).
57 [1951] 2 KB 215 (Court of Appeal of England and Wales (EWCA)).
58 Bob Hughes and Peter MacFarlane, ‘The Application of Custom in South Pacific Contract Law and as a Basis for an Estoppel’ (2004) 20 Journal of Contract Law 35. In Durham Fancy Goods Ltd v Michael Jackson [1968] 2 QB 839 (England and Wales High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)), it was held that a statutory relationship would suffice, but this has been doubted in Brikom Investments Ltd v Carr [1979] 2 All ER 753 (EWCA).
59 It is not open to a party to allege that a term is express and implied, as it cannot be both: Mudaliar v Gibson [1987] 33 FLR 56 (Supreme Court of Fiji (FJSC)).
60 See eg Ponape Transfer & Storage Inc v Wade (1992) 5 FSM Intrm 354 (Pon) (FSMSC).
61 See eg Vaioleti v Cross & Commodities Board of Tonga [1990] TLR 108 (Supreme Court of Tonga (TGSC)).
62 R v Apia Stevedoring Co Ltd [1950–69] WSLR 117 (SCWS).
63 ibid.
64 Shirlaw v Southern Foundries [1939] 2 KB 206, 227 (EWCA).
65 CP Homes Limited v Mahlon Ali [1995] SBHC 23 (HCSI).
66 [2007] PGNC 21 (PGNC).
67 ibid [72], [139].
68 ibid [77]–[78]; Underlying Law Act 2000 (PNG), s 9.
69 Sukuramu (n 66) [121].
70 New Britain Palm Oil Ltd v Sukuramu [2008] PGSC 29 (PNG Supreme Court (PNGSC)). See Underlying Law Act 2000 (PNG), s 11(2).
71 New Britain Palm Oil Ltd (n 69) [25]; Supreme Court Act 1975, s 15.
72 But note that actual undue influence has been regarded as a species of fraud: CIBC Mortgages plc v Pitt [1994] 1 AC 200 (United Kingdom House of Lords (UKHL)).
73 Kumari v Ammai [1978] FJCA 1 (FJCA).
74 Kumari (n 73).
75 Allcard v Skinner (1887) 36 Ch D 145 (EWCA). It should be noted that the distinction between actual and presumed undue influence has been eroded in some jurisdictions: see, eg Royal Bank of Scotland v Etridge (No 2) [2001] UKHL 44 [17] (UKHL).
76 Royal Bank of Scotland v Etridge (No 2) [2001] UKHL 44 [21]–[29] (UKHL).
77 Kumari (n 73).
78 Lallu v Ranchod (Court of Appeal of Fiji, 30 August 1996), 9. See further, Jennifer Corrin Care, ‘Case note on Lallu v Ranchod’ (1998) 2 Journal of South Pacific Law <https://www.vanuatu.usp.ac.fj> accessed 18 December 2020.
79 Lallu (n 78).
80 M Gluckman, The Ideas in Barotse Jurisprudence (2nd edn, Manchester University Press 1972) 171.
81 HJS Maine, Ancient Law (John Murray 1861) 100. On status and law in Melanesia, and more particularly the Trobriands, see B Malinowski, Crime and Custom in Savage Society (Harcourt Brace 1926).
82 Derek Roebuck, Dhirendra K Srivastava and John Nonggorr, The Context of Contract in Papua New Guinea (University of Papua New Guinea Press 1984) 44.
83 Richard Scaglion, Customary Law in Papua New Guinea: A Melanesian View (Papua New Guinea Law Reform Commission 1983) ix.
84 This table appeared originally in Jennifer Corrin, Contract Law in the South Pacific (2nd edn, Intersentia 2020) 26.
85 For an example of a case illustrating the difficulties that such dealings involve for a formal court see Island Enterprises Limited v Naitora [1990] SBHC 53.
86 N Seddon, ‘Reciprocity, Exchange and Contract’ (1974) 2 Melanesian Law Journal 48.
87 See eg Po’uhila v Veikune [1996] Tonga LR 11 (TGSC).
88 ibid.
89 Report No 6, December 1977, 1. See also clause 1 of the Fairness of Transactions Bill 1977 and Golpak v Malori [1993] PNGLR 491 (PGNC), which cites the Land Act ch 185, ss 73, 74 as referring to ‘customary contract’, although that phrase does not appear in the version of that Act (now repealed) which is available on PacLII.
90 Law Reform Commission of Papua New Guinea, Fairness of Transactions (Report No 6, December 1977) 1.
91 Fairness of Transactions Act 1993, s 39(1).
92 ibid s 3.
93 Anthony Angelo, ‘Contract Codes, Coral Atolls and the Kiwi Connection’ in Hans-Jürgen Ahrens, Christian von Bar, Gerfried Fischer, Andras Spickhoff and Jochen Taupitz (eds), Festschrift für Erwin Deutsch (Carl Heymanns Verlag 1999) 877.
94 Martin Tsamenyi, ‘Kiribati’ in Michael Ntumy (ed), South Pacific Legal Systems (University of Hawaii Press 1993) 75, 94.
95 Roebuck, Srivastava and Nonggorr (n 82) 43.
96 M Gluckman, The Ideal in Barotse Jurisprudence (2nd edn, Manchester University Press 1972) 171; Maine (n 81) 100.
97 Success (n 47).
98 ibid [9].
99 Contract Rules 2004 (Tokelau), r 23; Law Reform (Contract) Act 2009 (Vanuatu), s 4(1). Both provide that where an instrument expressly purports to confer any benefit on a person who is not a party to the instrument, that benefit may be enforced by that person.
100 [2004] WSCA 4 (Court of Appeal of Samoa (SMCA)).
101 ibid.
102 ibid.
103 See further, Marcel Mauss, The Gift (reprint, Routledge 2005) ch 2; John Davis, ‘An Anthropologist’s View of Exchange’ (1996) 4 Social Anthropology 213.
104 See eg Combe (n 57).
105 Po’uhila (n 87).
106 Po’uhila (n 87).
107 Po’uhila (n 87) 13.
108 See eg Rex v Saafi [2004] TOSC 59. See also Brown (n 15) and Philips (n 15).
109 [1963] PNGLR 130, 134 (PGNC).
110 [1981] PNGLR 199 (PGNC).
111 District Courts Act 1963, s 29(1).
112 [1986] PNGLR 233 (PGNC).
113 Jurisdiction was found in District Courts Act 1963, s 171(1)(b).
114 Constitution of Papua New Guinea 1975, s 42(1)(c).
115 Law Reform Commission of PNG (n 89) 5.
116 Success (n 47).
117 Semens (n 50).
118 ibid.
119 Constitution of the Federated States of Micronesia art XI, s 11. This section was amended in 1991 to add the words: ‘In rendering a decision, a court shall consult and apply sources of the Federated States of Micronesia’: Constitutional Convention Committee Proposal No. 90-19, SD1, CD1.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Jennifer Corrin
Jennifer Corrin is Director of Comparative Law in the Centre for Public, International and Comparative Law and Emeritus Professor at TC Beirne School of Law, The University of Queensland.