SELLER TO DISCLOSE THAT PURCHASER’S AGENT RECEIVES SECRET COMMISSION?
Attorneys Fidelity Fund Board of Control v Intibane Mediates and Others (56341/2010)  ZAGPPHC 699 (26 July 2016)
The 25 pages of facts in this matter reads like a drama, telling the story of how a property purchaser was induced to pay an excessively increased purchase price due to collusion between the seller and the purchaser’s agent. When this became known to the purchaser, it could not claim against its agent due to the latter’s demise. Was there a claim against the seller? In other words, is the seller under a duty to inform the purchaser of a secret commission sharing agreement which inflates the purchase price?
NO COHABITATION AGREEMENT: PROOF REQUIRED THAT YOU SHARE IN THE HOME AND ASSETS
Vermeulen v Marx (19398/2014)  ZAGPPHC
(25 July 2016)
There are hard financial and emotional lessons to be learned in this judgment as it highlights the unenviable position of a person, after break-up of the cohabitation relationship for which no agreement was concluded, to prove that his/her contributions over a span of years constituted a universal partnership and what share in this partnership accrues to which party. One can only repeat the advice that, where persons are in cohabitation relationships, they conclude a written contract which lays out explicitly who has claims to what type of support, who owns the property and how, if at all, it would be split if the relationship fell apart.
Summary of the Judgment