Cession Agreement In Construction

[53] I think Ms. Garbers is correct in this case that the actio applies. It seems to me that the obligation to pay profits from the partnership is part of the terms of a partnership contract or a company. Among these incidents, it seems to me that a partner should have the right to demand a certain benefit from a partner who, in this regard, would have escaped his responsibilities. A partner has a personal obligation under the partnership agreement to disclose and make available to them the partnership, money or other assets entrusted to him under the partnership that is part of the partnership. This is the claim against the second accused in this case. FirstRand Bank Ltd (bank) obtained the verdict against Brayton Carlswald (Pty) Ltd (Brayton) and Jonathan Paul Brews (together, defendant) in an earlier case for the payment of a sum of money. He tied up Brayton`s properties to execute the verdict. Gordan came to the rescue of Donald Brews (DG Brews), who agreed to lend money to the defendants, whose proceeds would repay their debts to the bank. As collateral for the loan, the defendants (i) agreed to acquire shares in a company; (ii) register a mortgage on related real estate; and (iii) that the Bank`s judgment would be transferred in favour of DG Brews. The bank also agreed to transfer its judgment charge to LA DG Brews against the payment of DG Brews` debt, plus an additional amount. After further complications, DG Brews paid the bank and, some time later, the bank transferred its debts and additional rights to DG Brews.

Given that GD Brews considered that it had acquired responsibility for the transfer decision as collateral for its credit, LA DG Brews asked South Gauteng High Court to replace it as an enforcement creditor. A beneficiary of a fiduciary company, which is Brayton`s sole shareholder, sought approval to intervene in LA DG Brews` application, as it and its subsidiaries would suffer direct financial losses and lose their livelihood. The Tribunal rejected DG Brews` request to be replaced as an enforcement creditor. He appealed to the Supreme Court, which appealed. Brayton and Martina Brews, the applicant, appealed the Tribunal`s decision. In addition, in point 2.1 above, the parties agreed that “the Cedent transfers and transfers to the transfer all its rights, securities and shares in all the funds earned and to be paid to the joint venture Andjamba Construction and Omatungo Property Development CC.” [19] The first complaint is that, for three main reasons, the grievor is not entitled to sue on the basis of the assignment. First, it is alleged that the appeasement of the assignment was not completed until after the cargo. In this regard, it is argued that, for this reason, the combined burden cannot be maintained or justified by the deed of surrender. The verdict contains important lessons for the parties and their lawyers who depend on the assignment for security.

A claim that must be surrendered must be an existing claim. The debt that leads to the debt is paid. Therefore, if a debt is to be transferred, it is important to ensure that the debt is not repaid before the debt is transferred. b) If the partnership agreement provides for the dissolution of the partnership or the parties then agree to the dissolution of the partnership and how the partnership is to be liquidated and dissolved, a defined benefit may be invoked under these conditions. [38] I say this in particular with respect to the operational position to be taken in philotex (supra)6, in which the court graphically described the workings of the key principle and stated: “There is nothing extraordinary about a complainant taking the train without his trumpet, even though it might be considered unusual.” In my view, without the assignment at the time of the opening of the proceedings, the applicant clearly had no means at the beginning of the proceedings.