Maryna holds the BA, LLB, LLM degrees and is a Director at the Cape Town branch of STBB. She is an admitted Attorney, Notary Public, Conveyancer and Insolvency Practitioner with many years of experience in the fields of property law, conveyancing and the laws relating to corporate compliance (especially in respect of the FICA and POPIA laws). Up until 2018 she was also head of the firm’s national marketing portfolio. She is a seasoned public speaker and presenter, both in person and online. She prepares text for the majority of STBB’s internal and external publications and is editor and co-writer for two pivotal publications in the South African real estate industry – the ABC of Conveyancing (JUTA) and Delport’s South African Property Law and Practice (JUTA).

Property Law Update | Issue 05 – 2022

CANCELLING A SALE AGREEMENT: NOT AS EASY AS YOU MAY HAVE THOUGHT

Dolce Domus CC v Herholdt and Another (742/2021) [2022] ZAECPEHC 5 (24 February 2022)

In this sale agreement, so many things went wrong! The seller’s feet turned cold after the sale and she sought to use the purchaser’s delay in furnishing a guarantee in respect of the purchase price, as a reason to cancel. Amidst the first lockdown and an apparent broken email server, the steps laid down in the sale agreement for the cancellation of the agreement were not complied with. Hence the agreement remained extant. It serves as a much needed reminder that once there is agreement on “how to” cancel that selfsame agreement, the parties thereto must heed the rules that they chose.

The Judgment
Summary of the Judgment

VAGUELY WORDED SUSPENSIVE CONDITION COULD SPELL DISASTER FOR ONE OR THE OTHER


Offerman and Another v Swanepoel and Another (6477/18P) [2022] ZAKZPHC 4 (10 February 2022)

The buyer and seller in this matter both initially assumed that their agreement was subject to the requirement that the purchaser shall, within 30 days of occupation of the property, obtain bond approval. Subsequently, the bond approval was late and the seller lost her appetite for the sale: The poorly worded suspensive condition was then scrutinized in different ways by the parties. To the buyer’s relief, the Court determined that the agreement provided that the 30 day period only commenced running after the buyer had achieved sole occupation, which the seller could not prove was the case. The period in which bond approval had to be obtained had therefore not yet commenced running, 4 years after the agreement was signed! The outcome demonstrates how important it is to think twice when choosing the happening of an event (sole possession after the unlawful occupiers were evicted, in this instance) to be the trigger for the commencement for calculation of a due date in sale agreements.

The Judgment
Summary of the Judgment

For the best legal advice and personalised service, let's talk
Subscribe to our monthly newsletters, subscribe