Liquidating a cc

Then, on 6 April 2011, the respondent resolved to enter into a covering mortgage bond in favour of the applicant.

Mojapelo AJ, with Mogoeng CJ, Nkabinde ADCJ, Jafta J and Zondo J concurring, finds that the parties to the contract intended to defer when the debt became due, and thereby the running of prescription, until demand was made for payment of the debt. The applicant paid the loan capital in three tranches of R1.5 million, R1 million and R500 000 on 13 February 2008, 15 February 2008 and 21 February 2008, respectively.The Court unanimously concludes, though for different reasons, that leave to appeal should be granted.By a majority of ten judges to one, it further holds that the defence of prescription is properly before the Court. The second (majority) judgment is written by Cameron J with Khampepe J, Madlanga J, Mhlantla J and Pretorius AJ concurring.In this Court Applicant’s submissions The applicant’s main contention is that the majority in the SCA erred in finding that, as a matter of law, a debt which is repayable on demand becomes due the moment the advance is made, without regard to the expressed intention of the parties.The correct approach, the applicant contends, is that in all contractual cases where the debt is payable on demand, the court must interpret the contract to ascertain the intention of the parties as expressed in the contract and establish whether demand is a condition precedent for the enforcement of a claim.

Search for liquidating a cc:

liquidating a cc-32liquidating a cc-4liquidating a cc-12liquidating a cc-83

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

One thought on “liquidating a cc”