Sale Of Business I was the sole member of a C.C. I sold my member’s interest to the purchaser who to…

Sale Of Business
I was the sole member of a C.C. I sold my member’s interest to the purchaser who took over the entire business as a going concern. At the time of sale the purchaser could not afford to pay cash and requested to pay the purchase price in monthly instalments.
The purchaser agreed to pay interest on the outstanding amount from time to time, at the current prime rate (fluctuating). The purchaser now claims that I am not allowed to charge interest, although it formed part of the written agreement, signed by both parties.
May the purchaser do so?

[Source] Click here to view the answer to this question

Hi, I require some assistance in respect of the following: I was employed at Nedbank up to 20 Octobe…

Hi,

I require some assistance in respect of the following:

I was employed at Nedbank up to 20 October 2014 where after I have changed companies.

During my stay at Nedbank my wife and I successfully applied for a Nedbank home loan (more specific a building loan). As part of the benefits extended to Nedbank staff, we were afforded the opportunity to have access to a fringe benefit interest rate of Prime less 2.5%. Upon termination of employment, Nedbank informed me that the fringe benefit rate will be reverted to Prime less 1.25% because I am no longer an employee. However, the Nedbank home loan credit agreement which we signed did not stipulate any such clause whereby the interest rate of Prime less 2.5% will be returned to the Prime interest rate. The final credit agreement which my wife and I signed only stipulated that the credit agreement in respect of the interest rate was afforded to us at Prime less 2,5% and did not stipulate that it was under condition of the Nedbank Staff Housing Scheme nor under the condition of employment at Nedbank. The only reference was in the pre-agreement quote but this condition was not carried across to the final credit agreement nor any reference made to it. Also, my employment agreement does not stipulate that any of the benefits derived will fall away if I am no loner in the employ of Nedbank.

The reason for my email is that Nedbank has contacted constantly and want to change the condition in the credit agreement whereby the Prime less 2.5% was awarded, restructure the agreement and due to an omission of a clause from their side, we need to reach an amicable agreement. This was telephonically confirmed by Nedbank Home Loans Head of Home Loans Greg Salter on 03/12/2014.

According to my understanding, we have upheld all of the required conditions of the loan agreement to-date, all payments have been made on time via a debit order, etc. but unfortunately Nedbank is of the view that they have the authority to change the credit agreement although I have yet to find a clause in the final credit agreement where it is stipulated nor have they been able to point this out to me.

I trust you will be able to shed light on the matter.

Regards
Jacques

[Source] Click here to view the answer to this question

Hi My query is about legal fees related to the issuing of summons for outstanding levies for a secti…

Hi
My query is about legal fees related to the issuing of summons for outstanding levies for a sectional title property.

The summons was issued by the sheriff on the 17th September 2014. The trustees issued the resolution on the 13th September 2014. The lawyers actioned it on the 15th September 2014.

The outstnading balanced the summoned was issued for was R6094.17. This amount was based on payments made up to 8th September 2014.

On the 8th of September a payment of R800 was made and on the 10th a payment of R2700 was made.

My argument was that On the 13th of September the balance outstanding was R2594.17.
Thus the trustees failed to check the bak accounts for payments on the 13th (the date they resolved to instruct the lawyers to issue the summons) and thus the amount the summons was issued for was incorrect, hence I feel that because the summons was for the incorrect amount it is not valid and I should not be liable for the fees for this.

Furthermore the lawyers clains that a second summons was issued on the 31st of October 2014. I have never seen or recieved this summons and because for this reason and the fact the the first summons was factually incorect I should not be liable for these fees as well.

Please advise if I am correct in disputing the fees I am liable for and would you assist in darfting a letter to contect this.

Regards
Prashanth
0839664063
ramon@igonline.co.za

[Source] Click here to view the answer to this question