Monthly Archives: February 2016

How to manage your debt

Posted on by

CRO_money_debt_collection_11-13Alecia had big financial problems; she had too much debt and her expenses outweighed her income. She decided to open a new bank account into which her salary could be paid, which would ensure that she could manage her salary before her monthly debit orders went off.

Alecia thought it would be a good idea to pay her small debts off first and then begin with the larger debt. Unfortunately this resulted in her not making any payments at all on her home loan and credit card and the bank threatened to blacklist her and sent her a summons.

If Alecia had known about debt counselling sooner she would not be stuck in the position she is now facing. It is important to educate people about debt counselling, especially in a country where debt is granted so easily and yet so hard to pay back. Debt counselling is a process of assisting consumers that are experiencing debt-related problems and are having difficulty making their current monthly payments, by providing budget advice, restructuring their payments, negotiating on their behalf with credit providers, monitoring their payments and providing aftercare services.

It is the duty of the Debt Counsellor [who is registered with the National Credit Regulator (NCR)] to assess whether the consumer is over-indebted by weighing the income and expenses and then taking into account statutory and non-statutory deductions as well as existing monthly debt payments. If the calculation results in a negative balance, the consumer is declared over-indebted. The debt counsellor provides a proposal that lowers the debt payments and increases the cascades (the number of months allowed for repayment of the debt, inclusive of interest), in order for the consumer to be able to manage his debt while paying it off at the same time. An order is then granted in court and sent to the credit providers, and the consumer can no longer incur any new debt. Once the debt is paid off, the consumer is given a clearance certificate and he/she has all that extra income to buy goods in cash.

Unfortunately, it was too late for Alecia as legal action was already taken against her. The same applies if a termination letter is sent in terms of s.129 of the National Credit Act. It is important for people to know that there is a way to manage their debt, but they need to acknowledge that they are in financial trouble before they are placed in a situation like Alecia. It may be too late for Alecia, but hopefully it won’t be too late for others.

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied on as legal or other professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your legal adviser for specific and detailed advice. Errors and omissions excepted (E&OE)

Are there limitations on ownership rights?

Posted on by

property-line-dispute-getty_ebcd9a0e9da5517cbd147ab14f732a5a_3x2_jpg_300x200_q85It is a recognised principle of property law that ownership does not confer absolute and unlimited entitlement on the owner, but that various limitations exist in the interest of the community and for the benefit of other people.

The most important limitation on the owner in the interest of the community as a whole is the payment of taxes to the state in respect of certain movable and immovable property. In the case of immovable property several measures make land available to a larger section of the community, which implies that the restitution of land rights and the provision of land will require measures for expropriation. Furthermore, a number of provisions deal with environmental conservation and physical planning which limit the owner’s entitlement in the interest of the community. Limiting measures in the case of moveable property prohibit the use of such property to the detriment of the community, for instance motor vehicles, fire-arms and dependence-producing substances.

There are also measures which limit the owner’s entitlement, not in the interest of the community, but in the interest of other individuals. The best known example in this case is neighbour law, which implies that the owner may not use his land in such a way that it constitutes an unreasonable burden on his neighbours. The criterion of reasonableness determines that, in these circumstances, the owner of immovable property may exercise his entitlements within reasonable bounds, and that the neighbouring owner or occupier must tolerate the owner’s exercise of his entitlements within reasonable bounds.

Other examples of the application of the criterion of reasonableness in the case of neighbour law are the obligation to lateral and surface support, measures dealing with encroachments, the mutual obligation regarding the natural flow of water and the elimination of danger.

Other people besides the owner may acquire entitlements (for instance use rights) in respect of the moveable or immovable property of the owner. Holders of limited real rights acquire entitlements in respect of the asset, which limits the owner’s ownership (dominium) as they burden the property. It is therefore enforceable against the owner and his successors in title. Certain creditors’ rights may also result in people acquiring entitlements in respect of the owner’s property. These rights are, however, only enforceable against the owner personally and do not burden the property as such, therefore it is not enforceable against successors in title.

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied on as legal or other professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your legal adviser for specific and detailed advice. Errors and omissions excepted (E&OE)

Contracting with minors in a digital context

Posted on by

BP0AWX Boy using iPhone

In this article, we examine whether contracts entered online by minors, using their parents’ credit cards, are legally binding in the specific context of social media such as Facebook.

Both Common law and legislation deal with the capacity of minors who enter into different types of contracts. According to the Children’s Act, 38 of 2005 a minor is a person between the ages of seven and 18 years. In terms of common law a minor does not have sufficient capacity to incur binding obligations under a contract and must obtain the assistance or consent of their guardian to do so. This consent can be given before the contract is concluded or thereafter, in which case it is seen as ratification of the contract. There are exceptions to this rule, which may be found in various pieces of legislation as well as in common law, such as contracts where the minor obtains only rights and no duties (e.g. a donation).

A minor can escape liability even when they have been bound in terms of the contract (i.e. where the guardian has assisted the minor in the conclusion of the contract, consented to or ratified the contract). This can be done where the contract was prejudicial to him or her at the time that it was concluded. The court may then, on application, set the contract aside and order that each party be placed in the same position as what they were in before the contract had been concluded.

Facebook is currently involved in an ongoing class-action lawsuit. In this lawsuit, a class of parents in America are pressing their claim that Facebook should change how it handles online transactions by minors.

Attorneys for the parents in the above case note that it is important that Facebook has knowledge of a user’s actual age but still treats children the same as adult users when it comes to taking their money.

One of the biggest issues here is that reciprocal performance, being the payment of money via credit or debit card and the child obtaining credits, takes place almost immediately. Therefore, if the parent were to be refunded, the minor would be unjustifiably enriched using the credits.

The system, that Facebook currently employs, is therefore problematic since it takes advantage of children who may not fully understand the contracts that they are entering into when they purchase game credits. Furthermore, should the parents be immediately refunded in the current system, it may lead to situations where the parent consents to the purchases and then after the child obtains the enjoyment from the credits, request that their accounts be credited due to a ‘lack of consent’.

It is therefore clear that this system of payment should be changed. We should obtain clarity on how to deal with this in South Africa once the class-action suit in America has been concluded and a solution has been reached. At present, it seems that there will be no alternative for parents whose children overspend or use their credit or debit cards, without permission. If your child has, a Facebook gaming habit it is a good idea to keep a close eye on your wallet until we have clarity on the recourse available to parents who find themselves in this situation.

Bibliography

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied on as legal or other professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your legal adviser for specific and detailed advice. Errors and omissions excepted (E&OE)