WILFUL IGNORANCE LANDS PROPERTY SELLERS WITH LIABILITY FOR DAMP DAMAGES
Gortzen and Another v Moolman (A3022-2021) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1780 (28 February 2024)
Getting the home showroom ready, remaining wilfully ignorant of the obvious, and allowing reckless half-truths to prevail, all combined in this matter to render the sellers of a home liable to the purchaser for damages resulting from damp. This in the context of sellers who were divorced: the ex-husband having long vacated the marital home, left the ex-wife to deal with the agent and purchaser in the time leading up to the sale. As co-owner, however, the ex-husband had also completed the Property Condition Report. He was thus held jointly liable with his ex-spouse, having not mentioned the damp which, he argued, was patent (but having shared the costs of the painters who were tasked to “make the house look pretty” for purposes of putting it on the market).
The Judgment
Summary of the Judgment
MARKETING METHODS CAN COST YOU
Information Regulator’s Enforcement Notice, 27 February 2024
The Information Regulator issued a first Enforcement Notice last week to FT Rams Consulting. This was the outcome of an investigation into a complaint received from an individual who became utterly annoyed by FT Rams’ countless direct marketing messages to him, regardless of his multiple attempts to opt out and requests to be removed from the company emailing list.
The Enforcement Notice
Summary of the provisions that apply in respect of electronic direct marketing
ACCESS TO FINANCIAL RECORDS OF A BODY CORPORATE: IS A PAIA APPLICATION REQUIRED?
Montrose Mews Body Corporate v Moela (2023/019308) [2024] ZAGPJHC 198 (7 March 2024)
The Sectional Titles Schemes Management Act grants owners various rights to access records relating to a scheme’s management and administration. This enhances transparency and participation by owners, but is often not a smooth-sailing process. Frequently, owners report that they are advised to first apply in terms of the Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA) before the request may legally be considered by the body corporate. Is this correct? No, for the reasons explained in this judgment.
