Newsletters
|
"BABY BOOMERS" 65 SOON: AVOID AGE DISCRIMINATION!
"Will you still need me Will you still feed me When I'm sixty four five?" (With apologies to the Beatles) With the first wave of Baby Boomers turning 65 next year, employers and their employees need to understand the rules relating to compulsory retirement age. In a nutshell, forcing someone to retire at 65 could - unless our labour laws are strictly complied with - amount toautomatically unfair discrimination on the grounds of age.
And businesses will pay dearly for getting it wrong. For example the Labour Court recently ordered an employer to pay maximum compensation (a full 2 years' remuneration, with punitive costs) to an employee who, having been employed at the age of 63, was forcibly retired at 65.
In this particular instance, the employer claimed to have had a standard retirement policy in force, but couldn't prove it. All employers should, to avoid any possible doubt, follow these principles:-- Formulate a properly drawn and recorded retirement policy
- Stipulate a compulsory retirement age upfront in all new employment contracts
- If your existing employment contracts don't stipulate a retirement age, negotiate one now - today. Note that you cannot unilaterally impose a new term like this on employees; it must be negotiated.
The stakes are high here - take advice in doubt.
LUXURY AND SECOND HOMES: NO PROTECTION FROM SALE IN EXECUTION
Good news for creditors comes from a recent High Court case in which a debtor failed to have a sale in execution of one of his two houses reversed on the basis of his constitutional right to adequate housing.
The warrant of execution had been issued by a court official without "judicial oversight", which, per a Constitutional Court decision in 2004, is necessary whenever a debtor is being deprived of his/her only access to "adequate housing". The court itself - not a court official - must then consider whether such deprivation is justifiable in the particular circumstances, putting at risk the creditor's chances of recovery.
However the Court in this case upheld the execution sale, making it clear that "luxury" or "holiday" homes would not enjoy this constitutional protection. The residence in question was a second house occupied not by the debtor himself (he resided in his other house), but by other occupants, and his creditor was therefore free to proceed as he did.
VITAL EVIDENCE ABOUT TO BE DESTROYED? ACT IMMEDIATELY!
What do you do if you suspect that someone you are suing (or are about to sue) is on the verge of hiding or destroying vital evidence in his/her possession?
Act immediately - our law has a remedy for you in the form of an "Anton Piller" order, whereby the Sheriff of the Court is authorized to search for, and seize into safekeeping, the relevant evidence.
But this is a drastic and draconian remedy. No advance notice is given to the other party, who is accordingly liable to suffer an unannounced and substantial invasion of privacy. Exactly that happened in a recent High Court case involving a search in the other party's home, as well as at her office.
Bearing in mind our constitutional right to privacy, whilst the remedy itself is not unconstitutional, the courts require that very strict guidelines apply to its use. Thus, held the Court, the "sole purpose" of an Anton Piller is the "preservation of vitally needed evidence for use in an already identified claim" - for which reason the evidence to be seized must be both clearly specified and "centrally relevant" to the claim.
Finding that in this particular case the order was too widely framed and thus amounted to "an impermissible fishing expedition", the Court discharged the order with costs, refusing the applicant's request that it rather be "trimmed down" to a more reasonable ambit. If it's too wide - if it "materially" exceeds what the law permits - it has been "unlawfully obtained", and is invalid.
DANGEROUS ROADS, DANGEROUS LAWS
What happens if you are seriously injured or killed in one of South Africa's many traffic accidents? How do you and/or your dependents continue to survive financially?
Under the old Road Accident Fund Act, if the other party was at fault, you could claim against the Fund for your full (i.e. actual) losses. The controversial amendment to the Act - in force since 2008 and recently declared by the High Court to be constitutional and valid - has changed all that.
The Court's decision is being appealed, but in the interim you and your family must live with the following: -- Claims for loss of income or support are limited to R 178 642 p.a. (R14.886 p.m.),
- Your claims for pain and suffering, disfigurement etc, have been greatly restricted,
- Your hospital and medical expenses are limited to provincial hospital rates,
- If you have shortfalls after claiming as above, you are stuck with them - there is no claim against the other driver or vehicle owner.
If R14.900 isn't enough to cover your family's monthly living expenses, you need to urgently think about how you and/or your dependents will be able to make up the shortfall. Consider personal accident, disability or income replacement insurance for the balance. And if you want medical care at private level, check that your medical aid will cover it!
CO-OWNERS COME TO BLOWS? COURTS TO THE RESCUE
Co-ownership of immovable property can be problematic, particularly if and when you and your co-owner/s decide for whatever reason to part company, but cannot then agree on how to divide the property.
Fortunately our courts will come to your rescue with a wide discretion to make any order that is "fair and equitable in the circumstances". Some of the orders a court might make include: -- Subdivision of the property if feasible, or
- Transfer to one of the co-owners against payment of a specified price to the other/s, or
- Sale of the property and division of the net proceeds between the co-owners. For example, the High Court recently ordered a property to be put up for sale firstly by public auction with a reserve price, and then - if the auction produces no sale - via an estate agent.
The court can also make any "equitable adjustment" between co-owners where one of them has had occupation or a financial benefit from the property, or borne any expenses relating to it (e.g. rates and taxes).
Note that where owners have agreed not to terminate the co-ownership for a period of time, this will be enforced. But any agreement to co-own in perpetuity is invalid, as no one can be forced to remain a joint owner indefinitely against their will.
Before opting for co-ownership of anything, take legal advice. Ideally enter into a properly-drawn agreement upfront to avoid any possible disputes, both during the co-ownership and on its termination.
VEXATIOUS LITIGANTS: RED CARD THEM!
Recent media reports have suggested that property developers in particular can use "new vexatious legislation" to take action against anyone who causes a developer financial loss by groundlessly objecting to a development scheme.
In reality there is no such new legislation around, and whether or not a developer will have a claim against a vexatious objector will depend on the normal rules relating to claims for damages - no changes there.
Of interest however (to everyone - not just developers) is the totally separate concept of outlawing "vexatious litigation". Between the common law and a 1956 piece of legislation aptly titled the "Vexatious Proceedings Act", you can indeed protect yourself from the proverbial "vexatious litigant". In summary, courts have the power to prevent abuse of their process both in individual proceedings and generally: -- In specific cases, a court can quash vexatious proceedings summarily, and
- More generally, a court may require that its leave be obtained before any new legal action is instituted by any person who has in the past "persistently and without reasonable ground instituted legal proceedings" against anyone else.
The courts are generally slow to grant such orders, but if you are being unfairly harassed via a barrage of groundless litigation, this may be your escape route.
THE JULY WEBSITE: PLANNING FOR SUCCESS WITH VISUAL AIDS & THINKING GUIDES
"Failing to Plan is Planning to Fail"; and that applies as much in our personal lives as it does to our businesses.
Clear, creative thinking being the well-spring of all successful planning, you should maximize it with visual aids such as the interactive analytical tools and "thinking guides" - flow charts, diagrams and conceptual maps - on the exploratree website at www.exploratree.org.uk. Find what you need under these headings: -- Map Your Ideas
- Solve Problems
- Explore
- Analyse
- Different Perspectives
It's all free, and don't be put off by the fact that these tools were developed for schools and students - they are an excellent resource for high-level planning and problem solving of all types.
If you're unsure where to start, try the 'Futures Wheel' template ("Think through the consequences and impacts of an event. What are the knock on effects?").
ENJOY JULY! (And if the winter cold is biting, take comfort in the old Norwegian adage: "There is no such thing as bad weather, only bad clothes")
Note: Copyright in this publication and its contents vests in LawDotNews(law.news) |
|
|
LEVY AND RENTAL DEFAULTERS: THEY CAN RUN, BUT HIDING JUST GOT HARDER!
"Close your eyes - Landlord knocking On the back door."
(Jack Kerouac; Northport Haiku) Two recent High Court decisions hold good news for bodies corporate and landlords - defaulting sectional title owners and tenants cannot hide behind the debtor protection provisions of the National Credit Act.
In summary, the NCA debt counselling process, with its inherent delays and risks for the creditor, does not afford protection to: - - Sectional title owners in respect of arrear levies
- Tenants of leased properties - in respect not only of arrear rentals, but also associated utility charges (rates, electricity, water, sewerage etc).
DRIVER DEMERIT SYSTEM ROLLING OUT COUNTRYWIDE - THE TIMETABLE
The AARTO traffic fines system is serious stuff, particularly from November when the points-based demerit side of the system commences. If you run up 13 or more demerits, your driver's licence/professional driving permit/operator card will automatically be suspended (3 months' suspension for every point over 12). And 3 suspensions will result in full cancellation.
The general payment and enforcement provisions (but at this stage minus the points system) are currently effective in the Tshwane and Johannesburg areas. Despite problems and challenges arising during these pilot phases, AARTO has now been gazetted for roll-out countrywide as follows: -- 1 July 2010 - Cape Town, eThekwini, Ekurhuleni and Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan Municipalities
- 1 November 2010 - rest of South Africa (and commencement of the points system)
Forewarned being forearmed, learn all about it now at the official AARTO websitewww.aartosa.co.za.
Note that there is some good news in all this - substantial discounts apply for early payment of fines. But there are also significant risks, so take advice in doubt.
THE BOND CLAUSE: NO DUE DATE = DISPUTE + DELAY!
If your property sale is subject to a suspensive condition (such as the buyer obtaining a bond), ensure that a specific time limit is clearly stated. Otherwise the buyer has by implication of law a "reasonable time" within which to obtain the bond - and, since you can't start looking for another buyer until the existing sale has definitely lapsed, that's a recipe for uncertainty, dispute, and costly delay.
What is or isn't a "reasonable" period of time depends, per a recent High Court decision on -- The "peculiar circumstances" of each case, and
- Factors such as
"...... the contemplation of each of the parties at the time of entering into the contract",
"......... any particular difficulty or cause of delay that might or did arise, if it was reasonably foreseeable", and
"......... the commercial interests of each of the parties." To illustrate - as a general rule 6 weeks may seem like plenty of time to get a bond, but in this particular case the seller was unable to convince the court that it was indeed enough, and lost the case.
Avoid all those grey areas - sign nothing until your attorney has vetted your sale agreement for both certainty and enforceability!
CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL: WHAT IS IT? HOW DO YOU PROVE IT?
Both employers and employees need to bear in mind the principle in our labour law that protects employees from being forced into resigning.
Such a forced resignation is regarded as being "constructive dismissal" - defined as taking place when an employee terminates his or her employment contract "because the employer made continued employment intolerable for the employee."
As illustrated in a recent Labour Court case: -- The onus is on the employee to prove constructive dismissal
- His/her perception of the situation must have been objectively reasonable in the circumstances
- The resignation must be an act of "final resort when no alternatives remain"
- A change of terms and conditions of employment will amount to constructive dismissal only if "the employee could not reasonably be expected to endure the situation", or if it goes "to the root of the employment relationship".
The employee in question headed her resignation letter "Forced Resignation", and asserted (with reasons) that: "The situation at work has become totally unbearable to the extent that I cannot tolerate continuing employment any longer". In the end however she was unable to convince the Court that, objectively speaking, the employer "had created an environment which left the applicant with no option but to resign". Her claim of constructive dismissal failed accordingly.
THE CLOSE CORPORATION, THE MEMBER WIFE, AND THE UNAUTHORISED HUSBAND
Don't deal with any close corporation without checking that whoever represents it has the authority to do so - otherwise your agreement literally won't be worth the paper it's written on.
For example, a property sale agreement was recently held by the Supreme Court of Appeal to be invalid where it had been signed, not by the sole member of the CC which owned the property, but by her husband. Because the husband hadn't been authorised in writing by his wife to conclude the sale, it was held to be null and void.
Where immovable property is involved, the authority must be in writing. But even in cases where verbal authority will suffice, play it safe and avoid dispute down the line by insisting on seeing - and keeping on file - written proof of authority.
Moreover even when your dealings are direct with a CC's member/s, you should still check for proper authorisation. The High Court recently held that a member holding a 50% interest in a CC could not institute legal action on behalf of the corporation without a members' resolution authorising him to do so. The other 50% member having died, the executor of his deceased estate now stepped into his shoes, and the surviving member could not act unilaterally.
As if that doesn't complicate matters enough, note that different rules apply to companies and trusts. Be careful; don't sign anything until your lawyer has checked it for you!
CLUSTER HOMES AND DEVIATING FROM THE BUILDING GUIDELINES - WHEN YOU CAN, AND WHEN YOU CAN'T
A Home Owners Association's constitution will invariably bind all its members to a set of architectural and building requirements which, in order to protect the rights of all home owners, controls aspects of the design and position of buildings and other structures within the complex.
But where deviations from such requirements are "minor", it seems that the courts may well condone them. Thus the High Court recently refused to order a complex homeowner to remove a wire mesh fence erected by him. Although the fence was not, as required, "Bekeart mesh", the Court held that: "To the untrained eye the difference will hardly be noticeable. If creepers are planted (as should be encouraged in terms of the constitution) it will be impossible to tell if it is plain wire mesh or Bekeart mesh". It seems that "noticeability" could be the key consideration here.
This practical approach however has its limits - any "absolute or peremptory" requirements must be strictly complied with. Take advice in doubt.
WHAT'S IN MY MUESLI? NEW CONTROLS ON FOOD LABELLING, ADVERTISING
New Department of Health regulations will control what must (and must not) be included in labelling and advertising of all foodstuffs. The idea is to assist consumers to make fully informed, healthy food choices based on clear disclosure of nutrient content in food products.
Although most of the regulations only come into effect on 1 March 2011 - giving non-compliant food manufacturers and importers 9 months now to get their houses in order - there is one exception, namely the misleading practice of labelling contents as a "negative percentage" (such as "95% fat-free"). From 1 June 2010 disclosure must be correctly stated in the positive ("5% fat"), and that applies not only to fat content, but to other components as well (sodium, energy, cholesterol etc).
"Trans fat", with its reputation as a significant health risk, is of particular interest to consumers, but will unfortunately only be dealt with later in separate regulations. A draft of these is currently open for public comment until the end of June.
THE JUNE WEBSITE: YOU, YOUR BUSINESS, AND YOUTUBE .........
Consider this: -- At long last we have uncapped broadband.
- There are now over 2 billion YouTube video views daily.
- YouTube South Africa has just launched (find it at www.youtube.co.za).
Put all that together and now's your big chance to boost your business with nothing more complicated than a short video or two.
How? First, read "How to Use YouTube to Drive Business" in the War Room section of Business Insider's website at http://www.businessinsider.com/youtube-business-2010-2#why-should-you-use-online-video-1. (Don't lose sight of your 3 main Goals here: "Inform, Educate and Entertain". See page 2/12).
That's mostly generalised advice, so next, search online for ideas relevant to your particular business model. There's a huge amount of free advice out there!
Don't worry about cost. It's virtually free - in the Internet Age, even the smallest business can have as big a footprint as the largest corporate!
Enjoy Your June!
Note: Copyright in this publication and its contents vests in LawDotNews(law.news) |
|
|
ESTATE AGENTS: PROTECT YOUR COMMISSION!
Estate agents need to take heed of a recent High Court case in which an agent's commission claim was rejected on two grounds.
An agent ("W") had initially introduced a buyer to a seller's property at a show house, but the buyer was - although keen to offer - at that time unable to do so (a) because the price was too high and (b) because of other financial commitments.
Later on another agent ("D") successfully negotiated a sale to the same buyer, after (a) the seller had reduced the price by R500.000, and (b) the buyer's other financial commitments had fallen away. The seller paid D her agreed commission, but refused to pay W the 6% commission she claimed - hence the litigation.
Firstly, W needed to prove a mandate from the seller. She was unable to provide evidence of an express mandate, so instead relied on a "tacit" mandate. That, held the Court, meant proving "unequivocal conduct, by inference if necessary, that the parties did contract in the terms alleged". Since W was unable on the facts to prove the terms of the mandate - specifically that the seller had indeed agreed to the commission rate she alleged (6%) - her claim had to fail.
Moreover, W couldn't show that she was the "effective cause" of the sale. At the time of the introduction by W, the buyer was certainly "willing"; but not "able" to buy. And although that was later rectified through negotiation via D, W couldn't prove that "the original introduction and visiting of the house was conclusive and dominating" in effecting the eventual sale.
Sellers: be alert to the danger of paying double commission in this sort of case - the courts have often awarded full commission to the introducing agent as well as to a later, intervening, agent. It was only on the facts of this particular case that the initial introduction was held insufficient to prove "effective cause", and in any event an appeal against the finding is apparently being considered.
Agents: you need to: - - Take a clear written mandate from the seller, setting out the terms of the mandate including the agreed rate of commission, and
- If you have introduced a buyer who is initially unwilling and/or unable to make an acceptable offer, don't give up. Follow up regularly in case circumstances change, and keep a clear paper trail in case you end up with a dispute.
THE WORLD CUP - SICK LEAVE SKIVING
Employers are going to be very suspicious if staff suddenly take "sick leave" just when a big World Cup game is on, and all concerned need to understand what the legal position is with sick leave. In summary:-- A medical certificate ("sick note") can normally only be required of an employee who takes more than 2 days' sick leave (i.e. 3 consecutive days or more), or where sick leave is taken more than twice in any 8-week period.
- Only original, unaltered medical certificates should be accepted; and checked for the basics, such as the name, address and qualification of the medical practitioner, name of the patient, date and time of the examination, description of the illness (doctor/patient confidentiality permitting), period of recommended leave, whether the inability to work is total or whether lighter duties could be performed, full signature by the practitioner, etc.
- Employers may question any medical certificate, and should certainly investigate any absence (certified or not) if there are grounds for suspicion (such as "Hey, what's Joe doing on the TV blowing a vuvuzela down at the stadium when he just called in with a migraine?"). Take advice on instituting disciplinary procedures (possibly even criminal charges for fraud) in the event of abuse.
If you are an employee wanting to watch a match during working hours without sacrificing your annual leave, ask the Boss to consider a bit of flexitime leeway. You can't force the issue, but from a staff morale perspective most businesses will probably try to be accommodating.
CC MEMBERS DUELLING? CHOOSE YOUR WEAPONS!
What do you do if member disputes are critically endangering your close corporation's business? First prize is for one of you to sell out to the other, but if you can't agree on a fair price, you need to force a resolution.
You have two courses of action to choose from, as illustrated in a recent Supreme Court of Appeal case. The CC in question held a very profitable pub, which was being managed by one of the members (the other member being described as a "sleeping partner", although in fact he turned out to be very much wide awake!). Allegations of misconduct, each against the other, led to differences between the members becoming so serious, and irreconcilable, that their relationship had "broken down irretrievably". The court was asked to make one of two orders: -- The "sleeping" member applied for liquidation of the CC on the grounds that, although it was solvent and profitable, it would be "just and equitable" to do so, to enable a liquidator to fully investigate the CC's financial affairs.
- The "managing" member asked for an order transferring to him the "sleeping" member's membership against payment of R400.000 (or such other figure as the court considered reasonable).
The SCA, commenting that the court "retains a discretion" in this regard, confirmed the liquidation order granted by the High Court. The "transfer of membership" option failed because the managing member hadn't given the court enough information to enable it to determine a fair "financial adjustment" between the members.
If you are in dispute with your fellow member, take legal advice immediately. And if you want to avoid liquidation, provide the court with a fully-motivated valuation of the business.
EMPLOYERS: LODGE RECON RETURNS BY 31 MAY!
SARS has set 31 May as the deadline for submission of the new EMP501 "Employer Reconciliation Declaration" returns for the period 1 March 2009 to 28 February 2010.
Do not be late - SARS has warned that late submissions will attract heavy penalties and will prejudice your employees (their personal income tax returns can only be issued once EMP501s are lodged). Keep a copy of the return, with proof of timeous submission!
WHO CAN MAKE A WILL? AND WHO'S "OF SOUND MIND"?
Make sure that you have a properly-drawn will - and review it regularly. Our law requires only two things for you to have "testamentary capacity" -- That you be over the age of 16, and
- That you be mentally capable of appreciating "the nature and effect" of your will (more commonly, but less accurately, referred to as being "of sound mind").
That "mental capability" becomes critical in those unfortunate cases where the validity of a deceased person's will is later challenged by a disinherited heir or relative. In considering just such a case recently, the High Court set out "the main elements of the test for deciding the question of testamentary capacity" as being that, at the time of making the will, he or she must have been capable of: -- "...comprehending the nature and extent of his property", and
- "...recollecting and understanding the claims of relations and others upon his favour and upon his property", and
- "...forming the intention of granting each of them the share in the property set out in the will or excluding them from any share of his property, as the case may be."
Tell your lawyer upfront if there is any hint of a possible challenge to the validity of a will (on any grounds), so that preventative measures can be taken. For example, in this particular case the deceased was gravely ill, and had predicted that his will would be challenged. His attorney accordingly arranged for it to be signed in the presence of a medical doctor, who was accordingly able to testify effectively as to the deceased's capacity at the time of signing.
Note that if you are challenging someone else's will on the basis of testamentary incapacity, the onus is on you to prove it.
EVICTION DELAYS? CLAIM FROM THE LOCAL AUTHORITY
Any landowner saddled with illegal occupiers faces potentially crippling delays in the battle to evict them, the courts commonly delaying eviction until alternative accommodation is provided for destitute occupiers.
Relief in such cases has come in the form of a recent High Court decision to the effect that a local authority's failure to plan and budget for the provision of alternative housing for such occupiers (its policy being to assist occupiers of State land only) is unconstitutional - in regard to the rights of both occupiers and of private landowners.
In the result, the municipality was ordered to pay damages to the landowner, equivalent to the "fair and reasonable monthly rental" lost by it during the preceding 7 months. Moreover the eviction order was granted (delayed for 2 months), the municipality being obliged to either find housing for the occupants, or to finance their rental of other accommodation.
THE MAY WEBSITE: PHISHING E-MAILS - THE BAIT, THE HOOK, AND THE LANDING NET
The current upsurge in fraudulent "phishing" e-mails is catching more and more victims. Why? Because these mails are constantly morphing into new guises, they look totally genuine, and they are carefully worded to look urgent and compelling.
Don't take the bait! If you are "hooked and landed", your account will be pillaged before you can blink an eye. And you won't get much sympathy from your bank.
The problem is that we all think to ourselves: "I won't fall for that". But in the heat of the moment, threatened (as often happens) with suspension of your account if you don't respond immediately, it's all too easy to fall prey to some new variant of these sophisticated scams.
Protect yourself! Be fully informed in advance - read the SABRIC (South African Banking Risk Information Centre) article "Internet Banking Fraud" on its website at www.sabric.co.za/?pg=Internet+Banking+Fraud.
Have a Fantastic (and phishing-free!) May
Note: Copyright in this publication and its contents vests in LawDotNews(law.news) |
|
|
DIRECTORS, RECKLESS TRADING: "HONEST BELIEF" IRRELEVANT
One of the nightmare scenarios facing any company director is being held personally liable for the debts of his/her company.
Commonly, a creditor of the company (or the liquidator thereof acting for the general body of creditors) claims from the director personally on the basis that he/she was party to "fraudulent or reckless" trading.
A recent High Court case, in which a director was held personally liable for a substantial (over R3m) company debt, illustrates the difference between fraud and recklessness - - In the case of fraudulent trading, "a director's honest belief as to the prospects of payment when due" is critical, i..e. the question is "what did the director actually believe at the time?"
- But in the case of reckless trading, the test is objective, and the director's "honest belief" - i.e. genuine belief that creditors will be paid - will be irrelevant "if a reasonable person of business in the same circumstances would not have held that belief."
Ordinary negligence or carelessness does not expose a director to personal liability; recklessness (which includes "gross negligence") goes beyond that. But be careful here - if, for example, a company "continues to carry on business as to incur debts when, in the opinion of reasonable businessmen, standing in the shoes of the directors, there would be no reasonable prospect of the creditors receiving payment when due, it will in general be a proper inference that the business is being carried on recklessly."
SELLERS AND CLEARANCE CERTIFICATES - NOTE THE 2-YEAR LIMIT ON RATES!
A sold property cannot be transferred to the buyer thereof unless and until the local authority issues a "clearance certificate", being its confirmation that it has received full payment of all amounts due in connection with the property in respect of "municipal service fees, surcharges on fees, property rates and other municipal taxes, levies and duties during the two years preceding the date of application for the certificate.."
The danger here for sellers of course is that these debts could include substantial service fees, run up by tenants without your knowledge. If the outstanding amounts relate to the property and fall within the 2-year period, you have no option but to pay them in full, regardless of whose debts they actually are.
But at least this danger is limited to the 2 years. In a recent case before the Supreme Court of Appeal, a municipality had attempted to force the seller to pay older debts by allocating all payments to the oldest debts, and then refusing to advise the seller how much of the debt fell within the 2-year period.
However, ruled the Court, a municipality cannot do that. It is required to: - 1. Advise you what part of the debt relates to the 2-year period, and 2. Issue a clearance certificate to you against payment of no more than that part of the debt. (Municipalities - tailor your credit control and debt collection policies to avoid debts ageing to anywhere near the 2-year limit. Collecting older debts is not going to be easy without the leverage provided by a seller's reliance on your clearance certificate before transfer can be effected!)
SUPPLIERS: GOODS SUPPLIED FROM 24 APRIL SUBJECT TO DAMAGES RISK
Consumers as well as suppliers of goods and services need to bear in mind that, although most of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act will only come into force on 24 October 2010, certain "transitional provisions" apply from 24 April: - - Although the Act will generally not apply to "pre-existing transactions and agreements", some exceptions will apply to relationships still in effect on 24 October; and
- The liability of all suppliers of goods to pay damages caused by defective goods "applies to any goods that were first supplied to a consumer on or after" 24 April. The danger here (for everyone in the supply chain) is that liability is "strict" or "no fault", i.e. you are liable even if you have not been in any way negligent.
Consumers: remember that your rights under the new Act only become enforceable in October.
Suppliers: your risk starts now. Manage it: - 1. Take legal advice on the extent of your exposure, have all your supply contracts checked, and beef up your quality control procedures 2. Check whether your "product liability" insurance will cover you for claims in terms of the Act.
BANKS: DANGER IN FINANCING PROPERTY COMPANY SHARE SALES
Companies are prohibited - subject to a few limited exceptions - from financing the purchase of their own shares.
Any financial institution providing loan finance for such a prohibited transaction runs the risk of having the loan declared void and unenforceable (and any supporting mortgage bond invalidated).
That's exactly what happened in a recent High Court case, where the purchasers of a farm-owning company's shares (and the partnership which operated the farm) obtained a bank loan for the purpose. Although a loan obtained with the intention of financing a prohibited deal "is not void where the third party is unaware of such intention", in this case the bank had intimate knowledge of how the transaction had been structured by the parties. Its loan - and bond - were accordingly declared invalid.
STATE TENDERS - YOUR RIGHTS
In setting aside the tender process followed by SAA in awarding a contract for ground handling services, the High Court recently examined the obligations in this regard of any "organ of state exercising a power in terms of the Constitution or performing a public function in terms of legislation"..
In essence, there is an "ever flexible duty to act fairly" - fairness in this instance entailing "a consideration not only of the interests of the excluded tenderer ... but also the interests of all the constituents who are affected thereby" (in this case the State, taxpayers and the flying public).
The Court commented that "tender procedures are vital to the very essence of effective government procurement policies. These procedures may well be described as intended to ensure that government, and therefore SAA, before it procures goods or services, or enters into contracts for the procurement thereof, has ensured that a proper evaluation is done of what is available, at what price and whether or not that which is procured serves the purposes for which it is intended. It has as its duty the obligation to ensure that SAA gets the best price and value for that which it pays."
Finding that one of the tenderers had been denied both sufficient time and sufficient information to enable it to formulate a bid, it set aside the whole tender process as "a sham".
THE APRIL WEBSITE: FREE MARKETING MAGIC WITH "STREET VIEW"
Google Earth has serious marketing potential for any business needing exposure to potential customers - estate agents, tourist services, restaurants, hotels, B&Bs, wineries, garages etc, etc.
Get going with these steps: -
1. Download Google Earth free from http://earth.google.co.uk/intl/en_uk/download-earth.html (or click "Check for Updates Online" under the Help menu to ensure you have the latest version) 2. Learn all about it with the "User Guide" under Help. You have a treasure trove to explore (one example - see what your house/office/favourite beach looked like 10 years ago, by clicking "Historical Imagery" under the View menu) 3. Register your free business listing by clicking "Add/Edit a Business Listing" under Help. That takes you to Google Maps - make the best use of it with their Help page at http://maps.google.com/support/bin/static.py?page=guide.cs&guide=21029&topic=21032, and with the Biz Communityarticle at http://www.bizcommunity.com/Article/196/16/44549.html. The more creative you are with adding photos, videos, website links, customer/client reviews, etc, the more response you will get! (Note that your business will only be "marked" in Google Earth if you fall into one of the business categories listed in the Layers box under "More", "Place Categories".) 4. Encourage happy customers to add their photos with Panoramio - full directions on their website at http://www.panoramio.com/help/adding_photos. And Now For Something Completely Different! Get ready for "Street View" - zoom in on 360° photos of individual streets, with houses, offices and tourist attractions. Europe, North America and Australia already have it; we launch soon!
Try it out in the meantime - - In the "Layers" box (bottom left of your Google Earth screen) make sure that the "Street View" box is ticked
- In the "Search/Fly To" box (top left of the screen) enter the street address of cousin Joe in Nashville or Auntie Agatha's Pancake Palace in Portsmouth - with luck, you will very shortly be looking at their front door (is that Charlie the cat in the window?).
Get ready - when Street View launches here, be the first to use it for your marketing! (To see how Aussie estate agents are doing it, go to Marketing Magazine's website at http://www.marketingmag.com.au/news/view/domain-com-au-leads-the-charge-for-real-estate-companies-using-google-maps-street-view-532).
Enjoy April! Note: Copyright in this publication and its contents vests inLawDotNews(law.news) |
|
|
DON'T LOSE YOUR HOUSE SALE ON A TECHNICALITY! Another warning to have your property sale agreement checked by your lawyer before you sign anything comes from a recent Supreme Court of Appeal case. The sale in question was held to be invalid for want of certainty as to when the purchase price had to be paid. The formal legal requirements of a property sale contract were examined by the Court, and in summary are as follows:- 1. "The whole contract ─ or at least all the material terms ─ must be reduced to writing" (and signed by the parties), and 2. "The Court must be able to ascertain with reasonable certainty the terms of the contract", and 3. All material terms must be finally agreed upon - no material term can be "left open for further negotiations". (Bear in mind that the above are the basics only - a properly-drawn sale agreement will also cover a multitude of other important issues!) Where grey areas normally come into play is in deciding what is - and what isn't - a "material" term in each particular set of circumstances. Clearly, the parties and the property must be clearly identified. And the Courts have held that the "manner of payment" of the purchase price "is ordinarily a material term", whilst our common law provides that - unless the parties agree otherwise - payment must be made in cash against transfer of the property. In this case, held the Court, the 'payment against transfer' rule could not be applied, because the parties had specifically agreed otherwise, namely (a) that transfer could only take place after full payment, and (b) that the purchase price payment details "were to be agreed upon in writing between the two relevant parties by not later than the 30/04/2005." As the parties fell out before they had reached that subsequent agreement, the whole sale was void. This despite the fact that the buyer in this case had already paid the agreed purchase price and costs in full to the seller's attorneys - in other words, this is a classic case of a party to a sale being able to escape it through a technicality. Don't expose yourself to the same fate! LEGAL COSTS AND TAX DEDUCTIBILITY - GOOD NEWS! Trading expenses and losses are generally only allowed as tax deductions if they are incurred "in the production of income". So what happens when you are sued - for damages perhaps - and incur substantial legal costs in defending yourself? Are you denied tax relief on those costs purely because they don't relate to thebringing in of income? Good news in this regard comes from last year's Tax Court ruling in favour of a provincial Premier, who was sued for defamation arising from statements he made about an ex-colleague during an official press conference. The Premier lost the case, and attempted to soften the financial blow by deducting from his earnings both the legal costs and the damages award. There was a lot at stake (as there tends to be when protracted litigation is involved) - legal costs of R452.000 in addition to the damages award of R35.000. SARS disallowed these deductions, but was overruled by the Court. This is good news for taxpayers generally, and it stems from the fact that the "production of income" rule does not apply to legal expenses. All you need prove is that the "claim, dispute or action at law" relates to "ordinary operations undertaken........in the carrying on of [your] trade". Note however that "expenditure of a capital nature" is excluded, and that there are complex issues involved here, with plenty of grey areas - so specialist advice based on the facts of each case is essential. The second bit of good news is that even if you are - like the Premier - a salaried employee, you can still take advantage of this break. Strangely enough, you are for this purpose considered to be "carrying on a trade", because "trade" is defined as "every profession, trade, business, employment, calling, occupation or venture......"! THE BANK, THE BUSINESSMAN, AND THE "GOOD" CHEQUES THAT BOUNCED You receive an order for goods or services and accept payment by cheque - and then the customer pressures you to make immediate delivery. Don't give in. Don't rely on the credit entry that shows up on your account as soon as the cheque is deposited. The funds only become available once the cheque is actually cleared (typically after 7 working days unless you ask - and pay for - special clearance within 2 working days). An important warning in this regard emerges from a recent Supreme Court of Appeal case - you are not safe to deliver or pay out before clearance even if your bank specifically tells you, when you deposit the cheque, that it is "good". In the case in question, a businessman delivered product to a purchaser on the strength of cheques which later turned out to carry forged signatures. As a result, he found himself out of pocket to the tune of R137.000. Although a bank official had confirmed to him, when the cheques were deposited, that they appeared to be "good", the Court held that that was not in any way a guarantee by the bank that the cheques were "good for the money" - just that they weren't post-dated, and hadn't been stopped. The 7 days' clearance still applied, and the bank was accordingly entitled to reverse the credits made to the hapless customer's account, and to recover from him the R48.000 which he had withdrawn from the account before the forgeries were discovered. BUILDERS: JUST WHAT DO INTERIM PAYMENT CERTIFICATES PROVE? Construction contracts commonly provide for "progress payments", based on "interim payment certificates" issued by an agent of the employer (often an architect, engineer or other professional) as the work proceeds. Subject always to the terms of each individual contract, a certificate contains a valuation of work done (and materials supplied) to date, and a certification of the amount accordingly payable by "the employer" (the client in a building contract) to the contractor. Note however that an interim certificate does not conclusively entitle the builder to payment. As illustrated in a recent High Court case, although the certificate itself gives rise to a claim and effectively proves the valuation of the work, it isn't "proof of the sufficiency of the work". In other words, it certifies the value of the work done; it doesn't prove that the contractor has complied with all the terms of the contract. Consequently, as happened in this case, the employer is still free to raise issues of "defective work or any other breach of contract". In practice that can be a subtle distinction, so seek advice before taking any action on any disputed certificate (or, if you are the client, paying out on one). SHOPPER TRIPS, SUPERMARKET SLIPS In awarding damages recently to a shopper who was injured when she tripped over something on a supermarket floor (possibly a protruding floor tile, although the supermarket claimed that she had rather slipped on something unidentified lying on the floor), the High Court made the following observations, which supermarkets would do well to take note of: - · ".........where accidents such as this one occur, it seems that any obstacle that was on the floor over which the plaintiff may have tripped, is an obstacle which should not have been there." · ".........it is strongly suggestive of negligence and unlawfulness if supermarkets allow obstacles to be on the floor, which should not be there and which cause persons to have accidents." THE MARCH WEBSITE: CONSUMER COMPLAINT? FLEX YOUR INTERNET MUSCLE! Before you buy anything - goods or services - check out the supplier on the Internet first. First Google the business, as well as its principal, directors or members - it's amazing how much information you can glean in cyberspace on even the smallest of businesses (if there's no trace of your supplier on the Net, find out why). Then search again on the "Hellopeter.com" site atwww.hellopeter.com. Consumers file both positive and negative reports on service providers, and the response of suppliers to complaints is tracked. If you do experience problems with a supplier, who then refuses to resolve them both fairly and quickly - use Hellopeter to flex some muscle. Of course you need to be fair and reasonable here, and don't expose yourself to a defamation claim (take advice in doubt!). But if your complaint has merit, the adverse publicity of a negative report will persuade most suppliers to act on it immediately. If not, you at least have the satisfaction of warning off the public from falling into the same trap that you did! Have a great March! Note: Copyright in this publication and its contents vests inLawDotNews(law.news) |
|
| | << Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 Next > End >>
| | Results 1 - 9 of 35 |
|
 |