ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES OF CO-OWNERSHIP
Claassen v Quenstedt and Others (1199/2011)  ZAECPEHC 18 (25 March 2014)
A partnership and joint ownership are different legal concepts. Prescription regarding debts owing between partners starts running at a certain time after the partnership is dissolved, whilst between joint owners the prescription countdown begins when the debt was incurred. This judgment shows how disastrous this can be where a cohabiting couple held property jointly, never arranged their affairs in writing, and then separated. X sought to share in the net proceeds after the property was sold, Y alleged that X was liable for a share in the bond repayments, improvements and property rates and taxes throughout the period of joint ownership. Since no partnership was established between them, many claims that Y had against X for arrear bond repayments and other expenses, prescribed.
Africast (Pty) Ltd v Pangbourne Properties Limited (359/2013)  ZASCA 33 (28 March 2014)
Parties to agreements often do not appreciate the almost guillotine-like effect of suspensive conditions, as faulty compliance is never raised as an issue where they remain keen to proceed with the agreement. What is so often presented to Courts are those instances where things go awry and one party looks for a way out, such party often finding the escape door in the area of compliance with the suspensive condition. This is another case in point, demonstrating the principle that where the condition is not met, the agreement lapses, notwithstanding the fact that parties had for a long time performed in terms of the agreement unaware that there was a fatal flaw in their agreement.