When the owner sought protection from the NCA, he was shocked. The financial company was indifferent to its arguments about the NCA. He was then informed of a 2013 Supreme Court of Appeal ruling that, under the NCA definition of “leaseback,” only agreements in which ownership is surrendered at the end of the agreement are covered by the NCA. Although the businessman believed that the ownership of the photocopier would eventually be reintegrated into his business, the terms of the agreements explicitly offered the opposite – he therefore had no protection from the NCA and was responsible for the R15,000. Perhaps he would have been more fortunate to have the protection provided by the Consumer Protection Act, which applies to such agreements, but it would not have been easy. The credit information held by the credit bureau within the meaning of the law includes that if the debt advice has not been successful, the credit provider has no choice but to initiate enforcement proceedings within the meaning of the NCA. So I think the question is not what the lease seems to be, but what the content of the lease actually attests to. For example, a common rental agreement with an apartment and an immutable rent for the duration of the lease is clearly not in the style of the NCA. If the rent varies in one way or another during the term of the contract, it is necessary to examine very carefully the contents of the lease to determine whether it contains interest/charges/hidden charges that are in fact part of a debt deferred to a later date. Only a court can declare a careless agreement at the request of the debtor advisor or the consumer. The Court may suspend the credit contract declared “light” or change the terms of the contract.
This work is licensed Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. The purpose of this document is to determine the extent to which the leasing of personal property should be subject to the national credit act. The paper analyzes court decisions relating to the rental of real estate and increases the added value of the existing stock exchange. Courts are not prepared to provide extrinsic evidence in cases where they object to the terms of an agreement. The parties should ensure that their contractual arrangements are clear and clear. Such provisions constitute the idea that the rental of a mobile property should fall within the scope of the National Credit Act, known as the NCA. And in such circumstances, which qualify them within the meaning of the law, it must be held. In accordance with Section 8 (4) of the NCA, the rental of personal property should in no way exclude the provision that the property is passed on to the purchaser in exchange for payment of the final rental rate. Alternatively, in accordance with certain conditions set by the parties. It is therefore appropriate to be able to distinguish between NCA and leases within the meaning of common law. It is therefore not possible to attempt to characterize the lease as a common right under Section 8 (4) of the NCA if the original intent was an ordinary collective agreement. In ABSA Technology/Michael`s Bid House, the Court found that, in certain circumstances, the NCA did not apply to the deralization of personal property.