In double sales the maxim “_qui prior est tempore potior est jure” _(in English simply meaning “he who is earlier in time, is stronger in law” applies.Below is a case law on valuable lessons estate agents, prospective sellers and prospective buyers alike can learn about the negative implications of being a party to double sales.

To download or view document please click here:
http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZAWCHC/2017/92.html#.WbqAQG_5VEY.mailto

“Going for an auction of distressed property, tread carefully” and/or “_You want to reinstate your credit agreement in respect of a homeloan_”, read the passage below and make contact with us to dissect the legal and financial implications of the attached Constitutional Case law on you.

_”There is no compelling reason why the meaning of “execution” in section 129(4)(b) should be given the extended meaning preferred by the Bank.The extended construction would render the section unuseful. The
High Court was correct that the barrier to a revival of the credit agreement applies only when proceeds from a sale in execution have been
realised. Only then would the revival be of no use to either party.I have already observed that section 129(3) had created a novel remedy to
foster payment of overdue debts and to rescue attached property,provided the consumer had lawfully revived the credit agreement.The provision amounts to a statutory remedy for rendering a default judgment
and attachment order ineffectual. That explains why once the credit agreement has been reinstated by paying all overdue amounts and allied
administrative and legal costs, the consumer “may resume possession of any property that had been repossessed by the credit provider”.This plainly means that the default judgment and subsequent attachment would be rendered without force or effect”. This is Moseneke DCJ’s obiter at paragraph 131 of the judgement. _For the full judgement open and vie here.