Browsed by
Month: August 2013

Business Planning

Business Planning

article2bl-AugustOwning a business requires careful succession planning and is part of your estate planning as you have to determine who will succeed you, or who will purchase your shares, or who will be entitled to the income after your death. The future ownership of your business is at stake.

A Partnership automatically dissolves upon the death of a partner and the remaining partners will then have to dissolve it and divide the assets amongst them.

In the case of a Company the shareholders may agree that:

  • The remaining shareholders have a right of first refusal to purchase the deceased shareholder’s shareholding, as opposed to dealing with it in a will.
  • The future of ownership of shares can be regulated by a written agreement between shareholders that is referred to as “buy and sell” agreement and has an influence at the death of a partner or shareholder.
  • The buy and sell agreement compels the executor of the deceased to offer the shares at a pre-determined price, and life policies between shareholders normally cover the purchase price.
  • The remaining shareholders are the beneficiaries of the policy on the life of the deceased and use it to purchase the shares, normally pro rata to the shares they already own.
  • Buy and sell policies fall outside the deceased estate and are not subject to estate duty provided that three requirements are met:
    • None of the premiums should have been paid by the deceased;
    • The shareholder relationship must have existed at the time of death;
    • A written agreement must exist.
  • When the skill and knowledge of a partner is essential for the survival of the business, “key man insurance“ can be taken out on the life of such a partner or shareholder. The premiums are paid by the business and the benefit is paid to the business to prevent financial loss or to appoint and train a replacement.

In the case of a “sole proprietor”, succession planning is dealt with in the Last Will and Testament.

  •  All the value of the business vests in the deceased estate.
  • Planning is essential as the business terminates at death, although the executor may sell it as a going concern.
  •  It is a good idea to grant a right of first refusal to an associate, who can purchase the business and intellectual capital at the time of the death.
  •  A life policy can provide for cover on the life of the owner, with the associate being the beneficiary, and the proceeds at time of the death utilized to purchase the business.
  • It deserves no debate that planning increases the benefit for the estate as opposed to closing the business down, where the assets will be worth far less.

Continued succession planning must be part of your business strategy to ensure your hard work benefits the right people.

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied on as legal or other professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your legal adviser for specific and detailed advice.

Click here to view full disclaimer

Besigheidsbeplanning

Besigheidsbeplanning

article2bl-AugustDie besit van ‘n besigheid vereis noukeurige opvolgbeplanning en is deel van jou boedelbeplanning omdat jy moet bepaal wie jou gaan opvolg, of wie jou aandele gaan koop, of wie geregtig sal wees op die inkomste na jou dood. Die toekomstige eienaarskap van jou besigheid is op die spel.

‘n Vennootskap word outomaties ontbind by die dood van ‘n vennoot en die oorblywende vennote moet dan die vennootskap ontbind en die bates onder mekaar verdeel.

In die geval van ‘n Maatskappy mag die aandeelhouers ooreenkom dat:

  • Die oorblywende aandeelhouers ‘n reg van eerste weiering het om die oorlede aandeelhouer se aandeelhouding te koop, in teenstelling met ‘n bemaking in ‘n testament.
  • Die toekoms van eienaarskap of aandele kan gereguleer word deur ‘n skriftelike ooreenkoms tussen aandeelhouers en word na verwys as ‘n “koop- en verkoopooreenkoms’, wat ‘n invloed het met die dood van ‘n vennoot of aandeelhouer.
  • Die koop- en verkoopooreenkoms verplig die eksekuteur van die oorledene om die aandele aan te bied teen ‘n vooraf bepaalde prys, en lewenspolisse tussen aandeelhouers onderling dek gewoonlik die koopprys. Die oorblywende aandeelhouers is verplig om te koop.
  • Die oorblywende aandeelhouers is die begunstigdes van die lewenspolis op die lewe van die oorledene en gebruik dit om die aandele te koop, normaalweg pro rata tot die aandele wat hulle reeds besit.
  • Koop- en verkooppolisse val buite die boedel van die oorledene en die opbrengs is nie onderhewig aan boedelbelasting nie, op voorwaarde dat die volgende drie vereistes nagekom is:
    • Geen van die premies moes betaal gewees het deur die oorledene self nie;
    • Die aandeelhouers-verhouding moet bestaan ten tye van die dood;
    • Daar moet ‘n skriftelike ooreenkoms wees.
  • Wanneer die vaardighede en kennis van ‘n vennoot essensieel is vir die voortbestaan van die besigheid, kan “sleutelmanversekering” uitgeneem word op die lewe van sodanige aandeelhouer of vennoot. Die premies word betaal deur die besigheid en die opbrengs word betaal aan die besigheid self om finansiële verlies te voorkom of om ‘n plaasvervanger aan te stel en op te lei.

In die geval van ‘n eenmansaak behoort opvolgbeplanning in die Testament behandel te word.

  • Die volledige waarde van die besigheid vestig in die bestorwe boedel.
  • Beplanning is essensieel omdat die besigheid by dood termineer, alhoewel die eksekuteur dit mag verkoop as ‘n lopende saak.
  • Dis ‘n goeie plan om ‘n reg van eerste weiering te gee aan ‘n assosiaat, wat dan die besigheid en intellektuele kapitaal na die dood kan koop.
  • ‘n Lewenspolis kan uitgeneem word waarin die eienaar se lewe verseker is, die assosiaat die begunstigde is en die opbrengs by dood aangewend word om die besigheid te koop.
  • Dit is voor die hand liggend dat beplanning die voordeel vir die boedel verhoog, in teenstelling met die sluiting van die besigheid waar die bates veel minder werd sal wees.

Deurlopende opvolgbeplanning moet deel wees van jou besigheidstrategie om te verseker dat jou harde werk die regte persone bevoordeel.

Hierdie is ‘n algemene inligtingstuk en moet gevolglik nie as regs- of ander professionele advies benut word nie. Geen aanspreeklikheid kan aanvaar word vir enige foute of weglatings of enige skade of verlies wat volg uit die gebruik van enige inligting hierin vervat nie. Kontak altyd u regsadviseur vir spesifieke en toegepaste advies.

Kliek hier om die volledige vrywaring te sien

Facebook’s revenge

Facebook’s revenge

article3bl-AugustFacebook, Twitter and other social network sites are part of many people’s lives and serve as a useful vehicle for sharing one’s personal views. However, these sites may may have unfortunate ramifications.

Let’s be honest, ranting in public about your boss has never been seen as a smart career move. It is one thing to speak your heart out about your boss to a friend over a drink, but for some reason or another, employees tend to lose their inhibitions when there is a computer screen between them and the world out there.

What happens when an employee makes use of a social network to air his/her views or to say nasty things about his/her employer?

Courts have held that it is fair for an employer to dismiss an employee for posting intentionally offensive statements about his/her employer on a social networking website, like Facebook.

In Sedick & another v Krisray (Pty) Ltd [2011] 8 BALR 879 (CCMA), employees were dismissed for bringing the company’s name into disrepute by publishing derogatory comments about the owner of the company on Facebook. The employees claimed that the employer breached their right to privacy by accessing their profiles on Facebook.

What happened?

The employees, De Reuck and Sedick, worked for a fashion accessories company. The company’s Marketing Manager logged onto her Facebook account and navigated to De Reuck’s Facebook page because she wanted to send her a friend request. She was able to see everything on the employee’s Facebook wall without being given access as a friend. She came across numerous posts by Sedick and other employees where they exchanged several snide remarks, which included the following: “Trust me, no one can put up with so much shit when the f*cking kids join the company!”; “From so-called ‘professionalism 2 dumb brats running a mickey mouse business”; “… today was hectic with Frankenstein”; “What an idiot”; “A very ugly man with a dark soul”.

The right to privacy?

The Commissioner noted that, in terms of the Regulation of Interception of Communications and Provision of Communication-related Information Act 70 of 2002, section 4(1), “Any person … may intercept any communication if he or she is a party to the communication, unless such communication is intercepted by such person for purposes of committing an offence”.

According to the Commissioner, the internet is a public domain and Facebook users have the option to restrict access to their profiles as well as the information that they publish. Because of the employees’ failure to make use of the privacy option, they had abandoned their right to privacy and the protection of the abovementioned act.

Fair dismissal?

The employees argued that they had not damaged the company’s reputation because they did not directly refer to the company or anyone who managed it. The Marketing Manager and the Arbitrator agreed that the references to the company and its management were obvious, because the people who were reading the comments would probably have known what and whom they were about.

The Commissioner held that, considering what was written, where the comments were posted, to whom they were directed and by whom they were made, the comments brought the employer’s good name into disrepute with persons both inside and outside the organisation.

The Commissioner confirmed that a dismissal under such circumstances could be fair if the employer follows the correct procedures and if the evidence used against the employee has not been illegally obtained in terms of the Regulation of Interception of Communications and Provision of Communication-related Information Act.

The moral of the story is: if you had a really rotten day at the office and are about to post some nasty comments about Mr or Mrs Boss, hold on a second. Do not write under the influence of alcohol, anger or frustration, as this sharing might get you fired.

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied on as legal or other professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your legal adviser for specific and detailed advice.

Click here to view full disclaimer

Facebook se wraak

Facebook se wraak

article3bl-AugustFacebook, Twitter en ander sosiale netwerke vorm deel van ons alledaagse lewe en dien as ‘n nuttige medium om persoonlike menings met ander te deel. Hierdie netwerke kan egter ongelukkige vertakkings hê.

Kom ons wees nou eerlik: om jou baas in die openbaar sleg te sê, was nog nooit `n slim loopbaanbesluit nie. Dis een ding om jou baas met `n vriend of kollega oor `n glasie wyn te bespreek, maar om een of ander rede bestaan daar `n geneigdheid onder werknemers om alle inhibisies en loopbaandrome  te vergeet wanneer daar ‘n rekenaarskerm geplaas word  tussen werkfrustrasies  en die wêreld daarbuite.

Wat gebeur wanneer ‘n werknemer  gebruik maak van ‘n sosiale netwerk, soos dié van Facebook, om sy mening te lug of selfs nare dinge te sê oor sy of haar werkgewer?

Howe het beslis dat dit billik is om ‘n werknemer te ontslaan weens die negatiewe stellings wat hulle op sosiale netwerke oor hul werkgewer uitblaker.

In Sedick & ‘n ander v  Krisray (Pty) Ltd [2011] 8 BALR 879 (KVBA), is werknemers ontslaan weens neerhalende kommentaar wat hul op Facebook gepubliseer het oor die eienaar van die maatskappy. Die werknemers het, sonder enige klaarblyklike sukses, beweer dat hul reg op privaatheid hierdeur in gedrang gebring word.

Wat het gebeur?

Die werknemers, De Reuck en Sedick, was werksaam by `n modebykomstighede-maatskappy. Die maatskappy se bemarkingsbestuurder het aangeteken op haar Facebook-rekening en De Reuck se Facebook-blad besoek om aan haar `n vriendversoek te stuur. De Reuck se Facebook-blad het gewemel van boodskappe van Sedick en ander werknemers, waarin hulle vryelik snedige aanmerkings verruil het oor die eienaar van die maatskappy. Aanmerkings het ingesluit: “Glo my, niemand kan sit met so baie k*k vandat die f*king kinders by die maatskappy aangesluit het nie!”; ” … vandag was dol met Frankenstein “; ” Wat ‘n idioot “,” ‘n Baie lelike man met ‘n donker siel “.

Die reg op privaatheid?

Die Voorsittende Beampte het opgemerk dat kragtens Artikel 4(1) van die Wet op die Reëling van Onderskepping van Kommunikasies en Verstrekking van Kommunikasie-verwante Inligting, enigiemand enige kommunikasie mag onderskep indien hy of sy ’n party is by die kommunikasie, tensy sodanige kommunikasie onderskep word vir die doel om ’n misdryf te pleeg.

Volgens die Voorsittende Beampte moet die internet beskou word as openbare domein en Facebook-gebruikers het die opsie om toegang tot hulle profiele sowel as die inligting wat hulle publiseer, te beperk. Juis weens die werknemers se nalate of versuim om die privaatheid-opsie te gebruik, het hulle afstand gedoen van hul reg tot privaatheid.

Billike ontslag?

Die werknemers het aangevoer dat hulle nie direk verwys het na die maatskappy of `n spesifieke persoon werksaam by die maatskappy nie en dus ontken dat hul die maatskappy se reputasie enige skade berokken het. Die Voorsittende Beampte het nie met hierdie argument saamgestem nie aangesien dit volgens hom voor die hand liggend was dat die mense wat die boodskappe lees bewus sou wees na wie die werknemers verwys.

Met inagneming van wat geskryf is, waar die kommentaar geplaas is, aan wie die kommentaar  gerig was, aan wie dit beskikbaar was en deur wie dit geplaas is, het die Voorsittende Beampte beslis dat hierdie kommentaar wél die werkgewer se goeie naam en reputasie in die gedrang gebring het by sowel persone binne as buite die maatskappy.

Die Voorsittende Beampte het bevestig dat ontslag wel onder hierdie omstandighede regverdig kan word, met dien verstande dat die werkgewer die regte prosedure volg en dat die getuienis in hierdie verband nie onwettig verkry is nie.

Dus, indien jy `n baie slegte dag by die kantoor gehad het, skep eers asem. Moenie onder die invloed van drank, woede of frustrasie negatiewe kommentaar plaas oor mnr. of mev. Baas nie.

Hierdie is ‘n algemene inligtingstuk en moet gevolglik nie as regs- of ander professionele advies benut word nie. Geen aanspreeklikheid kan aanvaar word vir enige foute of weglatings of enige skade of verlies wat volg uit die gebruik van enige inligting hierin vervat nie. Kontak altyd u regsadviseur vir spesifieke en toegepaste advies.

Kliek hier om die volledige vrywaring te sien

Transfer of a property: Is VAT or transfer duty payable?

Transfer of a property: Is VAT or transfer duty payable?

article4bl-AugustA Purchaser is responsible for payment of transfer cost when acquiring an immovable property, but it should further be established if the transaction is subject to the payment of VAT or transfer duty to SARS.

When an immovable property is transferred, either VAT or transfer duty is payable.

To determine whether VAT or transfer duty is payable one should look at the status of the seller and the type of transaction.

VAT

If the seller is registered for VAT (Vendor) and he sells the property in the cause of his business, VAT will be payable to SARS.  A vendor is a person who runs a business and whose total taxable earnings per year exceed R1 000 000. He will then have to be registered for VAT. A further stipulation is that the person who is a vendor should be selling a property that is related to his business from which he derives an income.

The Offer to Purchase should stipulate whether the purchase price includes or excludes VAT. If the Offer to Purchase makes no mention of the payment of VAT and the seller is a VAT vendor, it is then deemed that VAT is included and the seller will have to pay 14% of the Purchase price to SARS. It is the seller’s responsibility to pay the VAT to SARS, except if the contract stipulates otherwise.

When a seller is not registered for VAT, but the purchaser is a registered VAT vendor, the purchaser will still pay transfer duty but can claim the transfer duty back from SARS after registration of the property.

TRANSFER DUTY

When the seller is not a registered VAT vendor it is almost certain that transfer duty will be payable on the transaction. A purchaser is responsible for payment of the transfer duty. Transfer duty is currently payable on the following scale:

  1. The first R600 000 of the value is exempted from transfer duty,
  2. Thereafter transfer duty is levied at 3% of the value up to R1 000 000.
  3. From R1 000 000 to R1 500 000, transfer duty will be R12 000 plus 5% on the value above R1 000 000.
  4. On R1 500 001 and above transfer duty is R37 000 plus 8% of the value above R1 500 000.

Transfer duty payable by an individual or a legal entity (trust, company or close corporation) is currently charged at the same rate.

Transfer duty is levied on the reasonable value of the property, which normally will be the purchase price, but should the market value be higher than the purchase price, transfer duty will be payable on the highest amount. Transfer duty is payable within six months from the date that the Offer to Purchase was signed.

In instances where a party obtains a property as an inheritance or as the beneficiary of a divorce settlement, the transaction will be exempted from payment of transfer duty.

Where shares in a company or a member’s interest in a close corporation or rights in a trust are transferred, the transaction will be subject to payment of transfer duty if the legal entity is the owner of a residential property.

ZERO-RATED TRANSACTIONS

This means that VAT will be payable on the transaction but at a zero rate. If both the seller and the purchaser are registered for VAT and the property is sold as a going concern, VAT will be charged at a zero rate, for instance when a farmer sells his farm as well as the cattle and the implements.

EXEMPTION

Transfer duty, and not VAT, will be payable when a seller who is registered for VAT sells a property that was leased for residential purposes.

It is thus important for a purchaser to establish the status of the seller when buying a property. The seller who is registered for VAT should carefully peruse the purchase price clause in a contract before signing, to establish if VAT is included or excluded.

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied on as legal or other professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your legal adviser for specific and detailed advice.

Click here to view full disclaimer

Oordrag van eiendom: Is BTW of hereregte betaalbaar?

Oordrag van eiendom: Is BTW of hereregte betaalbaar?

article4bl-AugustDie Koper is verantwoordelik vir die betaling van die oordragkoste wanneer ‘n onroerende eiendom aangekoop word, maar dan moet verder bepaal word of BTW of hereregte op die transaksie aan SAID betaalbaar is.

By die oordrag van onroerende eiendom is daar altyd  BTW of hereregte betaalbaar aan SAID. Daar word na die status van die verkoper en die aard van die transaksie gekyk ten einde te bepaal of BTW of hereregte betaalbaar sal wees.

BTW

Indien die Verkoper vir BTW geregistreer is en die eiendom verkoop in die loop van of ter bevordering van sy onderneming, is BTW op die transaksie betaalbaar. ‘n Ondernemer is ‘n persoon wat ‘n onderneming bedryf en wie se totale jaarlikse belasbare inkomste R1 000 000 oorskry, en is verplig om vir BTW te registreer. ‘n Verdere vereiste is dat die eiendom wat verkoop word verband moet hou met die onderneming waaruit die ondernemer sy inkomste verdien.

Die koopkontrak moet dan stipuleer of die koopprys BTW insluit of uitsluit. Indien die koopkontrak nie melding maak van BTW nie en die verkoper is vir BTW geregistreer, word BTW geag ingesluit te wees by die koopprys en sal die verkoper 14% van die koopprys aan SAID moet betaal. Die verkoper is verantwoordelik vir die oorbetaling van die BTW aan SAID tensy die kontrak bepaal dat dit die koper se verantwoordelikheid is .

Indien die koper vir BTW geregistreer is maar  die verkoper nie, sal hereregte betaalbaar wees maar kan die koper ná registrasie die hereregte wat betaal is van SAID terugeis.

HEREREGTE

As die verkoper nie vir BTW geregistreer is nie is dit redelik seker dat hereregte betaalbaar sal wees, en wel deur die koper. Die koers waarteen hereregte tans bereken word is soos volg :

  1. Die eerste R600 000 van die waarde is vrygestel van hereregte,
  2. Daarna is die hereregte 3% van die waarde tot en met R1 000 000
  3.  Vanaf R1 000 001 – R1 500 000 is die hereregte R12 000 plus 5% van die waarde bo R1 000 000
  4. Op ‘n waarde van R1 500 001 en hoër is die hereregte R37 000 plus 8% van die waarde bó R1 500 000

Die koers waarteen hereregte betaal word is tans dieselfde vir natuurlike- en regspersone (maatskappy, beslote korporasie of trust).

Daar is enkele gevalle waar hereregte nie betaalbaar is nie, o.a. waar ‘n party ‘n eiendom bekom  kragtens ‘n egskeidingsbevel of ‘n erfgenaam is uit ‘n boedel.

Hereregte word bereken op die billike waarde van die eiendom wat gewoonlik die koopsom is. Indien die markwaarde van die eiendom egter hoër as die koopsom is sal hereregte op die hoogste bedrag gehef word. Hereregte moet oorbetaal word aan SAID binne ses maande vanaf datum van kontraksluiting.

Wanneer  aandele in ‘n maatskappy, of die ledebelang in ‘n beslote korporasie, of die regte in ‘n trust oorgedra word, is die transaksie onderhewig aan die betaling van hereregte indien die regspersoon die eienaar van ‘n residensiële eiendom is.

NULKOERS -TRANSAKSIES 

Dit beteken dat BTW wel betaalbaar is maar teen ‘n koers van 0%. Waar beide die verkoper en koper vir BTW geregistreer is en die eiendom as ‘n lopende saak verkoop word, word BTW teen ‘n nulkoers gehef, bv. waar ‘n boer sy plaas tesame met die implemente en vee verkoop.

UITSONDERING

Waar die verkoper vir BTW geregistreer is en sy besigheid die koop en verkoop van eiendom en die verhuring daarvan vir woondoeleindes behels, en hy die verhuurde eiendom verkoop, is daar nie BTW betaalbaar nie maar wel hereregte.

Dit is dus belangrik vir die koper om met die sluiting van die kontrak navraag te doen oor die BTW-status van die verkoper. Die verkoper wat vir BTW geregistreer is moet met kontraksluiting die koopprysklousule deeglik nagaan om seker te maak of die verkoopprys BTW insluit of uitsluit.

Hierdie is ‘n algemene inligtingstuk en moet gevolglik nie as regs- of ander professionele advies benut word nie. Geen aanspreeklikheid kan aanvaar word vir enige foute of weglatings of enige skade of verlies wat volg uit die gebruik van enige inligting hierin vervat nie. Kontak altyd u regsadviseur vir spesifieke en toegepaste advies.

Kliek hier om die volledige vrywaring te sien

COMPANY DEREGISTRATION: NEW PROCEDURES

COMPANY DEREGISTRATION: NEW PROCEDURES

MHI_CIPC BCIPC (the Companies and Intellectual Property Commission) has published new procedures for deregistration of companies and close corporations.  You can apply to voluntarily deregister your corporate if either –

  • It has ceased to carry on business, or
  • It either has no assets, or inadequate assets for it to be liquidated.

There are no forms to complete, just a letter on your company letterhead confirming its status and enclosing either –

  • A tax clearance certificate, or
  • A written confirmation from SARS that there is no tax liability outstanding.

Don’t try to do it without professional assistance 

There are several other formalities to be complied with, and also consequences to deregistration that you need to be prepared for including –

  • Loss of CIPC protections for your corporate’s name
  • Although the company will no longer exist as a legal entity, its debts survive (albeit unenforceable against the company itself).  As a result there is –
    • Continuing liability under any personal suretyships you may have signed, and
    • Continuing personal liability for any directors, “prescribed officers” (broadly, senior managers with “general executive control”) and shareholders who may have become liable for any company debt “in respect of any act or omission that took place before the company was removed from the register”.

© DotNews, 2005-2013. Hierdie is ‘n algemene inligtingstuk en moet gevolglik nie as regs- of ander professionele advies benut word nie. Geen aanspreeklikheid kan aanvaar word vir enige foute of weglatings of enige skade of verlies wat volg uit die gebruik van enige inligting hierin vervat nie. Kontak altyd u regsadviseur vir spesifieke en toegepaste advies.

EIENDOMSTRANSAKSIES MET TRUSTS: LET OP DIE RISIKO’S

EIENDOMSTRANSAKSIES MET TRUSTS: LET OP DIE RISIKO’S

MHI_PROPERTY TRANSACTIONS BEnige persoon wat eiendom namens ‘n trust wil verkoop of koop moet behoorlik en skriftelik gemagtig wees om namens die trust op te tree.

Alle ooreenkomste waarin onroerende eiendom gekoop of verkoop word, moet regtens op skrif wees en dit moet deur beide die koper en die verkoper onderteken word, of deur hul agente wat slegs kan optree indien hul sodanige skriftelike volmag van die koper of verkoper ontvang het.

Die Hoë Hof het ook onlangs hieroor uitspraak gelewer en as volg bevind –

  1. ‘n Trustee van ‘n trust is nie ‘n agent van daardie trust nie. Sy magte om die trust te bind en ooreenkomste namens die trust aan te gaan is in geheel afhanklik van die magtiging van sy mede-trustees.
  2. Enige ooreenkoms wat deur ‘n ongemagtigde trustee aangegaan en onderteken word, is nietig en onafdwingbaar.
  3. Die trust sal ook nie met terugwerkende effek die ooreenkoms kan ratifiseer nie. Die ooreenkoms is vanuit die staanspoor (ab initio) nietig. Dit het dus geen regsgeldigheid nie en kan ook nie geratifiseer word nie.

In hierdie betrokke geval het die verkoper van ‘n plaas, eerstehands kennis gemaak met die gevare daaraan verbonde om met ongemagtigde trustees van ‘n familietrust sake te doen. Hier het die trust reeds okkupasie van die plaas geneem en ook reeds die volle koopprys by die oordragprokureurs inbetaal. Die verkoper het probeer om oordrag van die eiendom te bewerkstellig. Die Hof het die transaksie egter as ab initio ongeldig verklaar en die verkoper was onsuksesvol in sy poging om die ooreenkoms af te dwing.

© DotNews, 2005-2013. Hierdie is ‘n algemene inligtingstuk en moet gevolglik nie as regs- of ander professionele advies benut word nie. Geen aanspreeklikheid kan aanvaar word vir enige foute of weglatings of enige skade of verlies wat volg uit die gebruik van enige inligting hierin vervat nie. Kontak altyd u regsadviseur vir spesifieke en toegepaste advies.