Discuss the limitations on ownership in South African law, referring to the definition in Gien v Gien (1979) and specific examples.

You're on a roll — This question refers to the definition of ownership as established in Gien v Gien (1979), which states that ownership is the most comprehensive real right a person can have to a thing, but it is not unlimited. Ownership is always subject to limitations imposed by law and the rights of others. Let's evaluate each statement: (i) The owner's freedom is restricted by law. This statement is correct*. Laws (such as environmental regulations, zoning laws, and nuisance laws) always place restrictions on how an owner can use their property. (ii) The owner has the freedom to do as she or he pleases with his/her or thing without limitation. This statement is incorrect. As per the principles of ownership, especially as highlighted in Gien v Gien*, ownership is never without limitation. It is restricted by law and the rights of others. (iii) The owner's rights are limited by the rights of others. This statement is correct. The exercise of ownership rights must respect the rights of other people, particularly neighbours (e.g., the principle of sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas* – use your own property so as not to injure that of another). The question asks to identify the incorrect statement(s). Based on the analysis, only statement (ii) is incorrect. The correct option is d). d) (ii) What's next?