BANK’S PRE-AGREEMENT STATEMENT AND QUOTATION CONSTITUTES LOAN APPROVAL ‘IN PRINCIPLE’
Setso Property Fund (Pty) Ltd v Manama (2023/0027101) [2024] ZAGPJHC 592 (21 June 2024)
In this rare instance where a seller chose to enforce an agreement against a defaulting purchaser, the seller’s claim for specific performance was challenged by the buyer. The buyer argued that the bank’s Pre-Agreement Statement and Quotation did not constitute approval ‘in principle,’ as stipulated in their agreement. The court noted that the language used by the bank in its documents did indeed constitute such approval. Furthermore, the court noted that the 5-day period for acceptance pertained only to the quotation. The pre-agreement thus remained in place as fulfillment of the suspensive condition.
The judgment and summary below highlight why the court found in favour of the seller.
The judgment can be viewed here
Summary of the Judgment
NEIGHBOUR TO REMOVE 78 CM² OF AN ENCROACHING ROOF
Pillay and Another v Moonsamy and Another (D6707/21) [2024] ZAKZDHC 35 (5 June 2024)
It is alarming that a dispute between neighbours regarding a relatively negligible encroachment should reach a high court. Nonetheless, the underlying legal principles for assisting an applicant are sound, as the discussion of the law in this judgment reflects. In addition, although a court has the discretion not to order demolition but instead to award payment of compensation or damages, this decision must be supported by cogent argument, failing which demolition will be the outcome.
The judgment and summary below highlight the reasoning of the court.
