The passages quoted by Mr. Gijima relate to cases decided in South Africa, but I have not been referred to the authorities of that jurisdiction who deal with staggered payments that are not governed by the leasing law in our jurisdiction. In page 164 of their book Willie-Millin, the qualified authors explain that a more precise reading of this passage allows me to conclude that scholarly authors were discussing a section of the South African Hire-Purchase Act. This passage cannot be of the importance attributed to him by Mr. Gijima, namely that any agreement under this jurisdiction, which provides for payment in installments, is a sale in installments, as required by the South African Trade Act. As I mentioned in our own Hire-Purchase Act [Chapter 14:09], it refers to catch-up contracts. These are defined as follows in section 3 of the act; This is not an exhaustive list of all the aspects that should be addressed in a sales agreement. As stated in the introduction, it is advisable to consult with a legal practitioner to design the agreement to ensure that everything is recorded in the right words. The applicant lost the vehicle he delivered to the defendant in an illegal transaction. The defendant benefited from such an operation, since he did not pay the applicant anything.
The right to build (Area/Opstal) can also be granted, so that buildings can be built on land. When the construction rights granted are terminated, the owner of the land acquires the rights to it, with or without payment. Construction rights can be granted for up to 50 years (99 years from 1 September 2021, when the Belgian property law reform came into force). Long leases and construction rights are often used in tax agreements. The applicant testified and argued that the agreement on the transaction between the parties had been approved as it did exh. 1 and signed by both parties. According to the applicant, the original agreement, signed by both parties on October 10, 2007, was to sell his motor vehicle by the defendant and pay him $14,000. It is not established that the parties` written agreement was subsequently amended. That is where the discrepancy lies.
(i) The first agreed instalment to be paid upon signing the agreement is $300,000,000.00 (old currency) ($300 million) in cash, i.e., on the basis of the Tribunal`s findings, the inevitable issue that cannot escape an examination of the legality or otherwise of the agreement reached by the applicant and the defendant. This issue is widely considered because of the conflicting views of the respective legal counsel, both for the applicant and for the defendant. Details of the vehicle sold, i.e. the model, the year of manufacture, the engine and chassis numbers (d) did the defendant violate the oral agreement by not paying the deposit in time? There were no issues to be decided on the written agreement, but in presenting their evidence, it would appear that the parties were focusing on issues that were primarily related to the written agreement. In its counter-action, the defendant accuses the applicant of violating the applicant`s agreement and challenges the existence of an oral agreement on the purchase of the vehicle. The applicant, on the other hand, claims ownership of the vehicle on the basis of the written agreement. If the applicant accepts his right to the written agreement, it seems to me that the dispute cannot be resolved without consideration at the beginning of the terms of the written agreement and what rights the parties retain in the vehicle under this contract. So it is clear that the court. Questions in paragraphs (c) to (f) of the parties` joint minutes were considered.