MEDP 299.XX Hunter College at the City University of New YorkPosts RSS Comments RSS

Reinstatement Of Credit Agreement

If the CC`s interpretation and argument in Nkata, noting that the reintroduction of a credit contract is carried out by the application of the law, applies to SS 129 (3) and (4) amended: Moseneke DCJ makes it clear in the majority judgment that an interpretive task (paragraph 92 from paragraph 99, paragraph 99, paragraph 99) is carried out to clarify the objective of re-establishing a credit contract with respect to ss 129(3) and (4). On the other hand, permission to reinstate immediately before the conclusion of a running sale may result in a loss of public confidence in the public auction process, which is now uncertain, and lower prices are offered and charged at these auctions. (b) after compliance with item (a), the holding of assets that the creditor has recovered as a result of a foreclosure order may resume. However, after the court order was issued, Nkata paid the remaining funds and continued to pay his monthly payments under the credit contract and entered into a transaction agreement with FRB. The transaction agreement provided that she would pay the funds she owed and that FRB would not sell her house in execution. The transaction contract was never converted into a court order and, despite this, FRB sold his house in execution. The Constitutional Court(CC) decision in Nkata/FirstRand Bank Ltd 2016 (4) SA 257 (CC) has led to a paradigm shift within the legal fraternity and the way credit providers carry out collection activities. (b) the enforcement of another judicial decision to enforce this agreement; In addition, on the second point, the Court held that the consumer has the power to unilaterally re-enter a credit contract – and that he can do so at any time before the credit provider reinstates the contract – since the reinstatement is done by legal protection. However, this trial was considered in the case of Nkata against Firstrand Bank Limited and others (`The Nkata Case`), and its outcome could have greater consequences. If a consumer is late in a payment, the credit provider can currently get an order against him. Such an order often provides that the property guaranteed by the credit contract can be sold in execution during a sale and, although the debtor has paid the remaining sums, the contract remains alive and can be executed by the creditor at any time if the debtor becomes insolvent again. National Credit Act 34 of 2005 (NCA) provides a mechanism for consumers who have fallen behind in their credit payments and are facing imminent debt enforcement measures in order to resume their credit contracts. To do so, consumers with consumer protection must remedy their default by paying for full late payments, late fees authorized by the credit provider and reasonable costs associated with the performance of the credit contract.

It should be noted, however, that the reintroduction of a credit contract depends on the payment of arrears and legal fees (required accordingly). Therefore, given that the Committee has found that reinstatement took place ex-date, the date on which the arrears were settled will affect whether the NCA applies before or after the amendment.

No responses yet

Comments are closed.