Αποτελέσματα Αναζήτησης
[1] What are the consequences of mistakenly transferring money to an incorrect bank account? That is the question that arises for decision in this appeal. [2] The appellant is a customer of the third respondent (‘FNB’). On 31 December 2002 it instructed FNB to make certain payments to its creditors. One such creditor was TSW Manufacturing.
- RTF Format
CASE NO: 27/2004 In the matter between : NISSAN SOUTH AFRICA...
- RTF Format
NISSAN SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LIMITED v MARNITZ, NADIA N.O. & 2 OTHERS, CASE NO: (27/2004), (1 OCTOBER 2004) / Download Summary Overview. Search. Up. Summary. List of files selected for download. NISSAN SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LIMITED v MARNITZ, NADIA N.O. & 2 OTHERS, CASE NO: (27/2004), (1 OCTOBER 2004) Size: 171.79 KB; Back. Powered by jDownloads ...
Nissan South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Marnitz NO and others (Stand 186 Aeroport (Pty) Ltd intervening) [20 Case summary of the Nissan case, that dealt with the reversal of funds... View more
Nissan South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Marnitz and Others 2005 (SCA) Facts: On its customer's (the appellant's) instructions, Firstrand Bank Ltd (FNB) (the third respondent) transferred an amount in excess of R12 E million from the appellant's account to an account held by one of the appellant's creditors, TSW, at the Standard Bank ...
In terms of the judgment a claim by Nissan South Africa (Pty) Ltd for the payment of an amount standing to the credit of Maple Freight CC (in liquidation) with First National Bank was dismissed. Nissan, by mistake, paid an amount into an incorrect bank account being the bank account of Maple Freight with Standard Bank.
Ukubona 2000 Electrical CC and Another v City Power Johannesburg (Pty) Ltd (155/03) [2004] ZASCA 65; 2004 (6) SA 323 (SCA) (1 June 2004) De Jongh v Du Pisanie NO (220/2003) [2004] ZASCA 66 (1 June 2004) July 2004. Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd v Koekemoer and Others (73/03) [2004] ZASCA 143 (2 July 2004) August 2004
14 Απρ 2021 · In Nissan South Africa (Pty) Limited v Marnitz NO and others, the court was required to decide whether a bank can unilaterally reverse a credit without the consent of the recipient. In answering this question, the SCA held that payment is a bilateral act and requires the meeting of two minds.
