Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisor 4 May 2017
dc.date.accessioned 2017-04-08T17:26:12Z
dc.date.available 2017-04-08T17:26:12Z
dc.date.created 2016-12-05 en
dc.identifier.citation [2017] ZACC 32
dc.identifier.citation 2017 (12) BCLR 1562 (CC)
dc.identifier.citation 2018 (1) SA 94 (CC)
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12144/3876
dc.title Trinity Asset Management (Pty) Limited v Grindstone Investments 123 (Pty) Limited en
dc.title.alternative CCT248/16 en
dc.identifier.casenumber CCT248/16 en
dc.date.hearing 4 May 2017
dc.contributor.judge Mojapelo AJ minority judgment
dc.contributor.judge Cameron J Majority judgment
dc.contributor.judge Froneman J separate judgment
dc.date.judgment 5 September 2017
dc.link.judgment http://collections.concourt.org.za/bitstream/handle/20.500.12144/3876/Full%20judgment%20Official%20version%205%20September%202017.pdf?sequence=28&isAllowed=y
dc.concourt.synopsis Contract — interpretation — when debt becomes “due and payable” Prescription — general rule — begins to run when debt arises — unless parties clearly stipulate otherwise Prescription Act 68 of 1969 — section 12 — prescription generally not delayed when debt is “due and payable” only after demand
dc.concourt.casehistory Application for leave to appeal against a decision of the SCA: Trinity Asset Management (Pty) Ltd v Grindstone Investments 132 (Pty) Ltd [2016] ZASCA 135; 2009 (4) SA 89 (SCA). The case was on appeal in the SCA from the Western Cape High Court: Trinity Asset Management (Pty) Ltd v Grindstone Investments 132 (Pty) Ltd (12677/14) [2015] ZAWCHC 105 (31 July 2015).


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search ConCourt Collections


Browse

My Account