Iinkampani zeemoto eziqeshisayo kunye neendlela zokuthengisa ezikhohlisayo

Kwinqaku lomthetho wohambo wale veki, sivavanya amatyala amaninzi arentwayo emoto abandakanya inkohliso nezenzo zentengiso ezingalunganga ekufuneka abathengi bazi. Isigqibo sakutshanje seNkundla yeSibheno yeSekethe ye-11 eVenerus v. Avis Budget Car Rental, LLC, No. 16-16993 (Januwari 25, 2018) indikhumbuza kwakhona, emva kweminyaka eyi-40 yokubhala malunga nomthetho wokuhamba ukuba eyona nto imbi kakhulu, ngo. kude, abaphuli bamalungelo abathengi kwishishini lokuhamba ziinkampani ezithile zeemoto ezirentwayo zase-US.

Kwityala laseVenerus, elibandakanya udidi lwabathengi be-inshurensi yemoto erentisayo yangaphandle betyhola, phakathi kwezinye izinto, ukophulwa kwesivumelwano kunye nokwaphulwa koMthetho weZiqhelo zokuRhwaphiliza kunye noRhwebelwano lwaseFlorida, iSekethe ye-11 yarhoxisa ukukhatywa kwesiqinisekiso sodidi lweNkundla yeSithili yaza yathi “Ityala. ivela kwi… I-Avis/Budget('s) yokusebenza kweshishini lokuthengisa i-Inshurensi yeTyala eLongezelelweyo okanye i-Inshurensi yeTyala eLongezelelweyo (SLI/ALI) kubathengi abarentisayo abasuka kumazwe angaphandle kweMelika. UHeather Venerus utyhola ukuba…ukuba i-Avis/Budget ithembise ngokhuseleko lwe-SLI/ALI njengomgaqo-nkqubo obonelelwa nge-Ace American Insurance Company (ACE) inkampani yeinshurensi egunyazisiweyo ukuba ibonelele ngokhuseleko olunjalo eFlorida. UVenerus utyhola ukuba nangona u-Avis/Budget ebophelelekile ngokwekhontrakthi yokwenza oko, akukho polisi ye-ACE okanye nayiphi na enye ipolisi ye-inshorensi ye-SLI/ALI eyakha yathengelwa, okanye yabonelelwa, kubaqeshi bamazwe angaphandle abathenge i-inshorensi yokuzikhethela. Endaweni yoko, i-Avis/Budget, engeyiyo inkampani ye-inshurensi, kujongwe ukuba iqinisekisa abaqeshi bangaphandle ngokwabo ngokhuseleko lwetyala lekontraka engenamgaqo-nkqubo okanye imigaqo ebhaliweyo. Ngenxa yokungabi nagunya lokusebenzisa i-inshurensi enjalo eFlorida, i-Avis/Budget kuthiwa ibashiye abaqeshi ngaphandle kwe-inshorensi esemthethweni ababethenjisiwe kwaye bayithengile ”. Ukongezelela, iNkundla yaphawula ukuba "i-Avis / Budget ayiphikisani ukuba ayizange ifumane imigaqo-nkqubo ye-inshurensi ye-SLA / ALI kwi-ACE".

Ii-E-Tolls ezingachazwanga: Ityala leMendez

Kwi-Mendez v. Avis Budget Group, Inc., i-Civil Action No. 11-6537 (JLL) (DNJ ngoNovemba 17, 2017), isenzo seklasi egameni labathengi beenkonzo zemoto ezirentwayo ezineemoto eziqashisayo "zixhotyiswe kwaye zihlawuliswe ukusebenzisa, inkqubo ye-elektroniki yokuhlawula iirhafu ezaziwa ngokuba yi-'e-Toll'”, iNkundla yaqinisekisa udidi lwesizwe kwaye yaqaphela ukuba “ummangali utyhola ukuba phambi, ngexesha nasemva kokurenta kwakhe…akazange axelelwe ukuba isithuthi: 1) ube nesixhobo se-e-Toll; kwaye 2) ngenene wabhaliswa kwangaphambili kwaye wavulelwa i-e-Toll (nangaphezulu) ukuba akazange aziswe ukuba (isithuthi sakhe esirentayo) sixhotyiswe ngesixhobo se-e-Toll, ukuba uya kunyanzeleka ukuba ahlawule ngaphezulu kweyona ndlela yokurhafisa. intlawulo eyenziweyo”. Ngexesha lohambo lommangali eFlorida, engazi, wahlawuliswa isixhobo se-e-Toll yemoto erentayo i-$15.75 equka umrhumo we-$.75 kunye “nomrhumo woncedo” we-$15.00 “nangona wayexelelwe…xa wayebuyisela isithuthi eso. akazange aphinde abe nazityholo zongezelelweyo”. Bona kwakhona: Olivas v. I-Hertz Corporation, iCase No. 17-cv-01083-BAS-NLS (SD Cal. Matshi 18, 2018)(abathengi bacela umngeni kwimirhumo yolawulo ehlawuliswa ngokunxulumene nokusetyenziswa kweendlela ezirhafelwayo; igatya lolamlo olusisinyanzelo liyanyanzeliswa) .

Uguqulo lwemali engafanelekanga: Ityala likaMargulis

Kwi-Margulis v. I-Hertz Corporation, i-Civil Action No. 14-1209 (JMV) (DNJ ngoFebruwari 28, 2017), isenzo seklasi egameni labathengi abaqeshisa izithuthi ngaphandle, iNkundla ekusombululeni ingxabano yokufunyanwa yaphawula ukuba "Ummangali ... yaqalisa eli nyathelo lomgangatho wokubeka…utyholwa ngokuba uHertz uqhuba inkqubo yoguqulo lwemali eyahlukahlukeneyo, ebhalwe 'dynamic currency conversion' (DCC) ukuqhatha abathengi abarenta izithuthi phesheya. Ummangali utyhola ukuba uHertz ucaphula amaxabiso omthengi wokurenta isithuthi ngaphandle kokuquka nayiphi na imali yokuguqula imali, uhlawulisa umrhumo ngokuthe ngqo kwikhadi letyala lomthengi aze ngobuxoki afune ukuba umthengi ukhethe ngokukodwa ukuguqulwa kwemali kunye nentlawulo engaphezulu elandelayo. Ummangali ubanga ukuba wayelixhoba lezenzo ze-DCC ze-Hertz ngokunxulumene nokurenta iimoto (e-United Kingdom nase-Itali) kwaye utyhola ukophulwa kwesivumelwano, ukutyebisa ngokungekho sikweni, ubuqhophololo kunye nokwaphulwa koMthetho woBuqhophololo wabaThengi baseNew Jersey.

Imirhumo yeFlaya yeFlaya engachazwanga: Ityala leSchwartz

Kwi-Schwartz v. Avis Rent A Car System, LLC, Civil Action No. 11-4052 (JLL), 12-7300 (JLL) (DNJ Juni 21, 2016) inike imvume yokugqibela yesisombululo esicetywayo [ukhetho lwemali okanye i-10 isaphulelo sepesenti kwirenti yemoto yexesha elizayo] yenyathelo leklasi eliqinisekisiweyo ngaphambili [Schwartz v. Avis Rent A Car System, LLC, Civil Action No. 11-4052 (JLL) (DNJ Agasti 28, 2014)] egameni leklasi ye-Avis abathengi [batyhola ukwaphulwa kwekhontrakthi, ukwaphulwa komnqophiso wokholo oluhle kunye nokusebenzelana ngokufanelekileyo kunye nokwaphulwa kweNew Jersey Consumer Fraud Act] abahlawuliswe intlawulo eyongezelelweyo ye-$0.75 ngokufumana iimayile ezihamba rhoqo-flyer kunye neminye imivuzo ngokuthatha inxaxheba kwiNkqubo ye-Avis's Travel Partner. Ekuboneleleni ngesatifikethi seklasi iNkundla yaqaphela ukuba "ummangali uxoxa ukuba abaMangalelwa babandakanyeka kwiindidi ezimbini ezahlukeneyo zokuziphatha okungekho mthethweni: ukushiya ngabom kunye nezenzo zorhwebo ezingenasazela ... 'ngokusilela kokubini ukubandakanya [le nyaniso] kwindawo apho ummangali kunye nabanye abarenti abanengqiqo banokulindela ukubabona kwaye endaweni yoko (kangangokuba naluphi na ubhengezo lwenziwe konke) ukufihla ezi nyaniso kwiindawo ezifihlakeleyo ngenjongo yokuba Ummangali okanye abanye abarenti abanengqiqo bakhe bayibona, 'Izenzo zokurhweba ezingafanelekanga kutyholwa ukuba…zisekelwe kokushiyiweyo”.

Imirhumo neeNtlawulo ezingekho mthethweni: Arizona AG

KwiState of Arizona v. Dennis N. Saban, Inombolo yetyala: CV2014-005556 (Arizona Super. February 14, 2018) J. Contes unike isigwebo se-1.85 yezigidi zeedola emva kwetyala leeveki ezintlanu lifumanisa ukuba iPhoenix Car Rental kunye neRent-A- kaSaban Car waphula Arizona Consumer Urhwaphilizo Act (ARS 44-1522 et seq) ngokumisela iintlawulo ezingekho mthethweni kunye nemirhumo ubuncinane 48,000 abathengi ukuquka "$3.00 for PKG, $11.99 inkonzo kunye nokucoca, $2.50 for s/c", iintlawulo ezinyanzelekileyo, irhafu enyanzelekileyo, abaqhubi abangaphantsi kobudala obuthile, iintlawulo zokuhlawula ngemali eziinkozo okanye amakhadi ebhanki, iintlawulo zokungabikho kobungqina be-inshorensi esebenzayo, iintlawulo zabaqhubi abongezelelweyo, iindleko zokuhamba ngaphandle kwelizwe, iintlawulo zamaphepha-mvume okuqhuba amazwe ngamazwe, iindleko zokuhla emva kweeyure zomsebenzi. ivaliwe kwaye ihlawulisa i-shuttle, iteksi kunye nezinye iindleko zokuhamba.

Kodwa ayisiyiyo yonke loo nto

Kule minyaka ingama-25 idlulileyo okanye abathengi beemoto ezirentisayo batyhole iindlela ezahlukeneyo zokukhohlisa nezingalunganga ziinkampani ezirentisa iimoto ukuquka:

(1) iintlawulo ezigqithisileyo zokurhoxisa umonakalo wongquzulwano (CDW) [Weinberg v. The Hertz Corp., supra ($1,000 exhuzulwa kwi-inshurensi apho umthengi anokuthi ayithintele ngokuhlawula i-6.00 yeedola ngosuku nge-CDW eyongezelelweyo ngonyaka ifikelele kwi-2,190 yeedola nge-1,000 yexabiso le-193 yokungqubana. i-inshurensi yomonakalo ekutyholwa ukuba ayinangqondo); Truta v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc., 3 Cal. App. 802d 1989 (Cal. App. 6.00) ($132 ngosuku i-CDW ihlawulisa ukuba ngokonyaka, iirhafu ezibizwayo zingaphezulu kwe-inshurensi ephindwe kabini ebonelelweyo kwaye kutyholwa ukuba ibiphezulu ngokungekho ngqiqweni)] kwaye isilela ukuveza ukuba i-CDW inokuphinda-phinda i-inshurensi yomrenti [Super Glue Corp. v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc., 2 AD 604d 2 (1987d Dept. XNUMX)].

(2) ukuhlawuliswa ngokugqithisileyo ekuboneleleni ngepetroli yokutshintsha emva kokuba isithuthi esiqeshiswayo sibuyiswe [i-Roman v. Budget Rent-A-Car System, Inc., 2007 WL 604795 (DNJ 2007) ($ 5.99 ngegaloni); Oden v. Vanguard Car Rental USA, Inc., 2008 WL 901325 (ED Tex. 2008) ($4.95 ngegaloni)].

(3) iintlawulo ezigqithisileyo ze-inshurensi yengozi yobuqu (PAI) [Weinberg v. I-Hertz Corp., i-supra (isityholo sokuba intlawulo yemihla ngemihla ye-2.25 yeedola ze-PAI kwakusithiwa igqithise kwaye ingenasazela ukususela ekubeni izinga lemihla ngemihla lilingana nomlinganiselo wonyaka we-$ 821.24)].

(4) iintlawulo ezigqithisileyo zokubuyiswa kade kwesithuthi [uBoyle v. U-Haul International, Inc., 2004 WL 2979755 (Pa. Com. Pl 2004)(“Kukho ipateni eqhelekileyo kunye nesiqhelo sokubiza imali eyongezelelweyo ' ixesha lokurenta' ngaphandle kokusilela ngokupheleleyo kwemiqathango yekontraka ukuchaza ixesha lokurenta, intsingiselo ecacileyo kwiintengiso ezibanzi zokuba isithuthi sinokuqeshwa ngexabiso elimiselweyo losuku lonke kunye nokusilela koxwebhu lwekhontrakthi ukuseka nawuphi na umlinganiselo 'wokhuseleko. ' ngenxa yokusilela ukubuyisela isixhobo ngexesha elimisiweyo”)].

(5) izivumelwano zokuncamathela [Votto v. American Car Rentals, Inc., 2003 WL 1477029 (Conn. Super. 2003)(inkampani erentisa ngemoto ayinakucutha ukuyekelela kumonakalo wesithuthi ngesolotya elikwicala elingasemva lesivumelwano; umzekelo obalaseleyo wekhontrakthi yokubambelela ('ebandakanya[s] amalungiselelo ekhontrakthi ayilwayo yaza yanyanzeliswa liqela elonwabela izibonelelo zamandla eengxoxo eziphakamileyo ezithi ngokungalindelekanga kwaye zihlala zinciphisa ngokungalindelekanga izibophelelo kunye noxanduva lweqela eliyila ikhontrakthi'”)].

(6) ukunyanzeliswa kweentlawulo ezingafanelekanga [Cotchett v. Avis-A-Car System, 56 FRD 549 (SDNY 1972) (abathengi bacela umngeni ukuba semthethweni kwentlawulo yedola enye ebekwe kuzo zonke izithuthi ezirentisayo ukuhlawulela ukwaphulwa kwemithetho yokupaka iinkampani ezirentisa iimoto ukubanjwa uxanduva phantsi kommiselo wesixeko osandul' ukuwiswa)].

(7) ukuhlawuliswa ngaphezulu kweendleko zokulungisa ngokwenene izithuthi ezonakeleyo [People v. Dollar Rent-A-Car Systems, Inc. 211 Cal. App. 3d 119 (Cal. App. 1989)(umqeshi ubize amaxabiso okuthengisa ngeendleko zehoseyile zokwenza ukulungiswa kwezithuthi ezonakeleyo ngokusebenzisa ii-invoyisi zobuxoki)].

(8) ukuthengiswa ngokungekho mthethweni kwe-inshorensi [Abantu v. Idola, i-supra (inkampani erentisa iimoto enoxanduva lokuqhuba ishishini lobuxoki nelahlekisayo; i-$ 100,000 XNUMX yesohlwayo soluntu esivavanyiweyo); Truta, supra (CDW asiyo-inshurensi)].

(9) isohlwayo esingenasazela kunye namalungiselelo okuqeshisa [Hertz Corp. v. Dynatron, 427 A. 2d 872 (Conn. 1980).

(10) i-unconsciousness disclaimer ye-warranty liability [Hertz v. Transportation Corp., 59 Misc. 2d 226 (NY Civ. 1969)].

(11) iintlawulo ezingachazwanga zokulahla ngaphandle kwelizwe [Garcia v. L&R Realty, Inc., 347 NJ Super. 481 (2002)(umthengi akufuneki ahlawule imali eyi-$600 ebekwe emva kokuba imoto erentwayo ibuyiselwe kwindawo engaphandle kwelizwe; iimali zamagqwetha kunye neendleko ezinikezelweyo)].

(12) ukumiselwa kweerhafu zenkohliso [I-Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Auto Europe, 2002 US Dist LEXIS 3319 (ND Ill. 2002)(abathengi batyholwa ngokuba banyanzelekile ukuba bahlawule 'irhafu yentengiso' yangaphandle okanye 'irhafu yexabiso elongeziweyo'…xa kungekho rhafu injalo ifunekayo kwaye ( inkampani erentisa iimoto) igcinwe 'irhafu')].

(13) ukukhutshelwa ngokungafanelekanga kweCDW [Danvers Motor Company, Inc. v. Looney, 78 Mass. App. Ct. 1123 (2011)(ukukhutshwa akunyanzeliswanga)].

(14) ukusilela ukutyhila iintlawulo ezinokuthi ziphepheke [Schnall v. Hertz Corp., 78 Cal. App. 4th 114 (Cal. App. 2000) (“Ugunyaziso lweentlawulo ezithintelekayo zeenkonzo ozikhethelayo alufane lube nemvume yokulahlekisa abathengi malunga neentlawulo ezinjalo”)].

(15) ukusilela ukubhengeza iilayisenisi kunye nemirhumo yoncedo [i-Rosenberg v. Avis Rent A Car Systems, Inc., 2007 WL 2213642 (ED Pa. 2007) (abathengi batyhola ukuba i-Avis 'yayibandakanyeka kwipatheni kunye nesenzo sokukhohlisa abathengi ngokubiza $.54 ngosuku umrhumo welayisensi yesithuthi kunye ne-$3.95 ngosuku intlawulo yomrhumo woncedo lomthengi' ngaphandle kokuchaza iintlawulo”)].

(16) iinkqubo zamabango angafanelekanga [Ressler v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company. 2007 WL 2071655 WD Pa. 2007)(etyholwa ngokuphathwa ngendlela engafanelekanga kwebango phantsi komgaqo-nkqubo we-PAI)].

Hotwire Ayishushu Kakhulu

Okucacileyo kuninzi lwezenzo zokushishina ezityholwa ngokuba yinkohliso ngamabango okuchazwa gwenxa kwezibakala eziphathekayo. Ngokomzekelo, kwityala lika-2013, u-Shabar v. Hotwire, Inc. kunye ne-Expedia, Inc., 2013 WL 3877785 (ND Cal. 2013), umthengi wemoto erentisayo watyhola ukuba "usebenzise iwebhusayithi yeHotwire ukuqesha imoto kwindawo yokurenta imoto. kwisikhululo seenqwelomoya iBen Gurion eTel Aviv, kwaSirayeli. U-Shabar utyhola ukuba isivumelwano sakhe kunye noHotwire sibekwe phakathi kwezinye izinto, intlawulo yerenti yemihla ngemihla (i-14 yeedola), ixesha lokurenta (iintsuku ezi-5), uluhlu lweerhafu eziqikelelwayo kunye neefizi (i-$ 0) kunye nemali eqikelelwayo yohambo (i-$ 70), UShabar utyhola ngelithi xa ethatha imoto, i-arhente yokurenta yamfuna ukuba ahlawule i-$70.00 yexabiso eliqikelelweyo likaHotwire, kunye ne-60.00 eyongezelelweyo ye-inshurensi yemfanelo yomntu wesithathu kunye ne-$ 20.82 yerhafu. Iyonke i-Shabar ithi "uhlawule i-$ 150.91, kunokuba i-$ 70.00 iqikelelwe nguHotwire". Ekwaleni ukurhoxisa isikhalazo seShabar iNkundla yagweba ngelithi 'uShabar utyhola ngokwaneleyo ukuba ingxelo yeHotwere eqinisekisiweyo malunga nexabiso lilonke eliqikelelweyo yayibubuxoki okanye ilahlekisa umntu onengqiqo. Okokuqala, uqikelelo lwalububuxoki kuba uHotwire wayezishiyile ngabom iintlawulo ezongezelelekileyo nezisisinyanzelo ezifumaneka lula kwaye wayesazi ukuba uShabar kuza kufuneka ahlawule ukurenta imoto. Okwesibini, ixabiso elicatshulwe kwiirhafu eziqikelelwayo kunye neefizi lalibubuxoki kuba iHotwire yayisazi ukuba ezi ndleko aziyi kuba yi-0.00 yeedola.

Ubudlelwane obupholileyo

Umzekelo onomdla wentsebenziswano etyholwayo phakathi kwabanye oorhulumente bamazwe kunye neshishini lemoto elirentisayo ekonakalisa abathengi beemoto ezirentwayo uchazwe kwityala laseCalifornia leShames v. Hertz Corporation, 2012 WL 5392159 (SD Cal. 2012) kunye neNevada analogues. Sobel v. The Hertz Corporation, 291 FRD 525 (D. Nev. 2013) kunye Lee v. Enterprise Leasing Inkampani, 2012 WL 3996848 (D. Nev. 2012).

Ityala laseCalifornia

Njengoko kuphawuliwe kwi-Shames, supra “Ngo-2006, ishishini leemoto ezirentisayo (RCD) licebise ngotshintsho kumthetho wase-California owathi wawiswa emva koko…Utshintshiselwano lwale nkxaso-mali yandisiweyo (iintlawulo kwiKomishoni yokuHamba noKhenketho yaseCalifornia (iKomishoni)) i-RCD yaba bavunyelwe 'ukudibanisa' imirhumo ehlawuliswa abathengi ukuba babhale imirhumo elolo hlobo ngokwahlukileyo kumlinganiselo werenti esisiseko. Okubalulekileyo, utshintsho olwamkelweyo luvumele iinkampani ukuba 'zigqithise ezinye okanye zonke iimvavanyo kubathengi'. Abamangali batyhola ukuba oku kukhokelele ekubekweni kwemirhumo emibini eyodwa kubathengi beemoto ezirentwayo…i-2.5% yomrhumo wokuhlola ukhenketho yongezwa kwiindleko zokurenta imoto, eyathi, yanceda ngemali iKomishoni. Abamangali batyhola ukuba iKhomishoni emva koko yasebenzisana nee-RCD ezilungisa amaxabiso eemoto ezirentwayo ngokugqithisela i-2.5% yomrhumo wokuhlola ukhenketho kubathengi. Okwesibini, ii-RCDs 'zizohlule' umrhumo osele ukho wemvumelwano yesikhululo seenqwelo-moya ehlawuliswa abathengi ukuba bahlawule isikhululo seenqwelo-moya ngelungelo lokuqhuba ishishini kwizakhiwo zesikhululo seenqwelomoya...9% yexabiso lokurenta… Ukuqeshwa kwemoto kwizikhululo zeenqwelo moya zaseCalifornia kunokuba bebenokwenza ngenye indlela”.

Amatyala eNevada

Ngelixa inyathelo leklasi yaseCalifornia Shames yazinziswa inyathelo lodidi lweNevada [Sobel v. Hertz Corporation, supra] ebandakanya ukudlula “kwemirhumo yokubuyisela kwisikhululo seenqwelomoya kwisikhululo seenqwelomoya” yaya ematyaleni, phakathi kwezinye izinto, ukuba oku kupasa kwaphule umgaqo kaNev. Rev. Stat. (NRS) Icandelo le-482.31575 kunye ne-Nevada yoMthetho wokuSebenza ngokukhohlisayo (NDTPA) kunye "Ngaphezu kwe-$ 42 ... yezigidi ezisengozini". Ekuqinisekiseni iklasi kunye nokufumana ukwaphulwa okusemthethweni, iNkundla yaphawula ukuba “Ishishini lokurentisa iimoto ngasekupheleni kweminyaka yamashumi asibhozo lizibandakanye kwimfazwe eqatha yamaxabiso, imfazwe apho iinkampani [ezirenta iimoto] ziye zabangela imigibe yeentlawulo ezongezelelweyo. abaqeshisi abangakrokreli kwaye basebenzise amajelo eendaba entengiso ukwenza oko'”. INkundla ibonelele ngembasa yembuyekezo kunye nokugweba kwangaphambili inzala ngexabiso elisemthethweni.

isiphelo  

Ushishino lweemoto ezirentwayo lwaseMelika lunesimo sengqondo esibi malunga noxanduva lwalo kubathengi. Ukuba iinkonzo zayo zinokuphetshwa okanye zitshintshwe, abathengi bayacetyiswa ukuba benze njalo. Zama u-Uber okanye uLyft kwixesha elizayo.

Umbhali, uThomas A. Dickerson, usweleke nge-26 kaJulayi 2018 eneminyaka eyi-74. Ngobabalo losapho lwakhe, eTurboNews Uvumelekile ukuba abelane ngamanqaku akhe esinayo kwifayile awayithumela kuthi ukuba siyipapashe evekini.

Umhlonishwa. UDickerson uthathe umhlala phantsi njenge-Associate Justice yeCandelo leZibheno, iSebe lesibini leNkundla ePhakamileyo yaseNew York kwaye wabhala malunga noMthetho wokuHamba kangangeminyaka engama-42 kubandakanya neencwadi zakhe zomthetho ezihlaziywa minyaka le, Umthetho wohambo, Umthetho weJenali yeendaba (2018), Litigating International Torts in Iinkundla zase-US, iThomson Reuters WestLaw (2018), iZenzo zeklasi: Umthetho wamazwe angama-50, Umthetho weJenali yeJenali (2018), nangaphezulu kwamanqaku asemthethweni angama-500 uninzi lwawo ezikhoyo apha. Ukufumana iindaba ezongezelelekileyo zomthetho wokuhamba kunye nophuhliso, ngakumbi kumazwe angamalungu e-EU, Cofa apha.

Funda ezininzi ze Amanqaku kaJustice Dickerson apha.

Eli nqaku alinakuphinda liveliswe ngaphandle kwemvume.