View Online  |  Forward Newsletter
February 2023

Dear Client / Geagte Kliënt


Newsletter
 
 

In practice, the terms “Offer to Purchase” and “Deed of Sale” are often used interchangeably, but there is a slight difference. When a Purchaser/Buyer makes a written, signed offer to a Seller to purchase the Seller’s property that document is called an “Offer to Purchase” (“the Offer”). The Offer will usually have a time period (expiry date) within which the Seller can accept the Offer made by the Purchaser. The inclusion of an expiry date in the Offer is to ensure that the Offer does not stay open for acceptance by the Seller for a prolonged period of time to the Purchaser’s detriment. Where, however, no expiry date is mentioned in the Offer, it must be accepted by the Seller within a reasonable period of time. The Seller accepts the Offer by signing it. Once the Seller signs the Offer, that document becomes a contract called a “Deed of Sale”/“Agreement of Sale”. If the Seller on the other hand rejects the Offer, the document will simply fall away and will be of no force and effect.

Question: What happens if the Seller accepts an Offer after the expiry date? Will the Deed of Sale/Agreement of Sale be valid, or will it be invalid and unenforceable?

This situation was considered in the case of Manna v Lotter and another 2007 (4) SA 315 where the Offer in question contained an expiry date clause which read as follows:

“This offer is irrevocable and expires at noon on the 8th of November 2003 and on acceptance shall become a binding Agreement of Sale irrespective whether the Purchaser has been notified of such acceptance or not.”

The Offer was accepted by the Seller four days after the said expiry date. Both parties initially believed that the Agreement was binding, but when the Seller was asked to sign the transfer documents she failed to comply and refused to give transfer. The Purchaser then sued the Seller to compel her to give transfer of the property, claiming that there was a valid Agreement despite the late acceptance of the Offer by the Seller. Part of the Seller’s defence was that since she accepted the Offer four days after it had expired the Deed of Sale was void.

The Court held that:

  • The expiry date in the Offer to Purchase was a stipulation that was inserted for the exclusive benefit of the Buyer (Purchaser) who was entitled to waive that benefit.
  • The Buyer had an opportunity to decide, after the late acceptance, to either accept or reject the acceptance, which decision had to be made within a reasonable time. Should the Buyer choose to reject the acceptance by the Seller, no Agreement would come into being. Should the Buyer accept the acceptance, he could waive the expiry date and proceed with the sale.
  • The Seller who made the late acceptance was bound by the Agreement.
  • The Buyer could communicate the waiver to the Seller by doing whatever he needed to do in terms of the Agreement, for example by signing documents, paying costs, etc. The Buyer’s decision to proceed with the Agreement can therefore be deemed from his conduct.
  • The Buyer waived the expiry date by proceeding with the transfer and the Agreement was valid and enforceable. The Seller was ordered to sign all documents and take all steps necessary to effect the registration of transfer of the property.

In Closing: To avoid future disputes about the validity of such an Agreement, one should ensure that an Offer to Purchase is accepted before the expiry date. Should you find yourself in such a predicament, you can protect the Offer/ Agreement by immediately getting something in writing from the Purchaser wherein he/she unilaterally waives the benefit of this expiry date and confirms that he/she wishes to proceed with the Agreement/Transfer. The Seller should be informed about the Purchaser’s waiver as soon as possible. Another option is to amend the Offer to say that a late acceptance will not give rise to a binding Deed of Sale/Agreement. This will remove any doubt about the validity of such a late acceptance of the Offer.

 
 
 
ArticleImage  
Bure wat hul sleg gedra: Onwettige geboue en slopingsbevele

Jou buurman begin om ’n woonstelblok langs jou erf te bou – sonder goedgekeurde bouplanne. Wat kan jy daaromtrent doen?

Ons behandel hierdie vraag na aanleiding van 'n onlangse hooggeregshofsaak. Twee bure het die hof gevra om 'n eienaar te beveel om 'n veelvlakkige woonstelblok wat hy gebou het, te sloop. Die munisipaliteit het reeds voorheen “staak bouwerk” bevele uitgereik en die eienaar het dit geïgnoreer.

Die uitspraak en die redes vir die toestaan van die slopingsbevel, hou waardevolle lesse in vir eienaars wat op hul eiendomme wil bou, en ook vir mense wat daardeur geraak word. 
Read More
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Tell All Your Creditors When You Change Address! The Case of the Summons Served on a Complex Security Guard  
ArticleImage

When we come to the part in contracts that asks for our “domicilium citandi et executandi” address we tend to be pretty casual firstly about choosing which address to use, and then about telling the other party when we change address down the line.

That’s a big mistake, as a recent court case shows. The buyer of a car was sued for R108k, and the summons was served on a security guard at his old address in a security complex.

When the debtor’s bank account was frozen after the creditor took a default judgment against him, he asked the High Court to set aside the judgment. The outcome is a warning to us all - take the “domicilium” part of all agreements seriously! 

Read More
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ArticleImage  
Dagvaarding van R2,2 miljoen vir werknemer wat oor sy “graad” lieg en bedrieg

Bedrog in CV’s en oor kwalifikasies kom blykbaar algemeen voor. Daarom moet die aangeduide kwalifikasies en verwysings sover moontlik deeglik nagegaan word, voordat julle ‘n werknemer aanstel.

As werkgewer kan jy wel kennis neem van ‘n onlangse hooggeregshofbeslissing. Hier het 'n werknemer 'n graadsertifikaat vervals en ook sy akademiese rekord vervals. Die hof bepaal dat hy elke sent wat hy as gevolg van sy bedrog verdien het, aan sy werkgewer moes terugbetaal.

Die hof het die bedrieglike werknemer beveel om agt jaar se salarisse ten bedrae van meer as R2,2 miljoen aan die werkgewer terug te betaal. Die hof het die werkgewer ook toegelaat om toegang te verkry tot die werknemer se pensioenfonds, vir doeleindes van hierdie verhaling. (Pensioenfondse word normaalweg teen eise van krediteure beskerm.) 
Read More
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Check All Emailed Bank Details for BEC (“Business Email Compromise”) Frauds  
ArticleImage

We’ve all heard (but perhaps not all of us have remembered!) how online BEC (“Business Email Compromise”) scammers worldwide have been particularly targeting property transactions because of the substantial amounts of money involved.

Beware – it’s not just conveyancers and property buyers and sellers who are being targeted, but also anyone involved in high-value transactions, property-related or not. In South Africa, for example, inverter installations are currently big business courtesy of Eskom’s woes, and online criminals have taken note.

We discuss how these scams work, how to spot them, how to avoid them, and the legal aspects of who is responsible (and who must bear the loss) if you are scammed.

Read More
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Our Directors
             
       
    Eberhard
Kruger
DIRECTOR
021 180 4552 / 082 789 1706
ekruger@vzk.co.za
      Cheryl-Anne
Ehrenreich
DIRECTOR
021 180 4564 / 082 783 7242
cheryl@vzk.co.za
      Andre
Van Greunen
DIRECTOR
021 180 4550
andre@vzk.co.za
   
     Full Bio →

       Full Bio →

       Full Bio →

   
         
     
    Marzanne
Van Wyk
DIRECTOR
021 180 4551
marzanne@vzk.co.za
      Kumedzani
Muloiwa
DIRECTOR
021 180 4578
kume@vzk.co.za
   
     

       

   
         
 
 
 
 
 
 

© LawDotNews & Van Zyl Kruger Inc. This newsletter is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied on as legal 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.

VAN ZYL KRUGER INCORPORATED (REG. NO 2015/174073/21) (VAT NUMBER 413 0273 172)


www.vzk.co.za

Suite 520 Tyger Lake, Niagara Road,
Tyger Waterfront, Bellville, Cape Town

info@vzk.co.za | Reception: 021 180 4550 | Fax: 021 180 4540


DIRECTORS: E S KRUGER (B.COMM LL.B MPRE); C A EHRENREICH (BA.LL.B LL.M); AJ VAN GREUNEN (BPROC, LLB, LLM);
M VAN WYK (B.COM LLB); K MULOIWA (LLB)
ASSOCIATES: S JANSE VAN RENSBURG (B.COM LL.B); L J CHANTLER (B.COMM LL.B);
A BARNARD (B.COM LL.B DIP.FIN PLANNING); B SCHOLTZ (LL.B)
PRACTICE MANAGER: F BRAVENBOER (NDIP FIS)
EXECUTIVE CONSULTANT: HL VAN ZYL (B.PROC) CONSULTANTS: JAL VAN ZYL (B.JURIS LL.B);
C I’ANSON-SPARKS Solicitor in England and Wales (LL.B(HONS), DIP LEGAL PRACTICE)