EXECUTION SALE: INSIGHT INTO THE PROCESS & DIFFICULTIES WHEN THE COURT DETERMINED RESERVE PRICE IS NOT MET
Hancock and Another v Nedbank Limited and Others (905/2018) [2019] ZAFSHC 219 (14 November 2019)
This judgment sketches bits of the practicalities of the new process whereby courts must determine a reserve price for properties to be sold in execution. What made it more intricate was that the highest price received at the sheriff’s auction was way below the price determined by the Court. The sheriff however approached a judge in chambers to order that the lower price be accepted, as the procedure requires, unaware that that the property owner had secured a much higher price in the meantime and had communicated that to the bank (the judgment creditor).
The Judgment can be viewed here:
The Judgment
Summary of the Judgment
CANCELLATION OF AN AGREEMENT HAS A SPECIFIC CONSEQUENCES: MAKE THE RIGHT CHOICE
Mostert NO and Others v Du Preez NO and Others (10569/2017) [2019] ZAWCHC 150 (8 November 2019)
In our law, when a party breaches an agreement, the right to exercise an election is bestowed on the ‘innocent’ party. The remedies are juxtaposed: the innocent chooses either to cancel the agreement or to hold the other to the agreement and claim specific performance. This decision must be taken with caution to avoid a scenario as in the present judgment, where the innocent party sought to cancel the agreement but nonetheless relied on the agreement to claim certain relief.
The Judgment can be viewed here:
