Αποτελέσματα Αναζήτησης
Nissan South Africa (Pty) Ltd. v Marnitz NO and Others (Stand 186 Aeroport (Pty) Ltd. Intervening) (27/2004) [2004] ZASCA 98; [2006] 4 All SA 120 (SCA); 2005 (1) SA 441 (SCA) (1 October 2004) ... Insofar as TSW was concerned FNB was instructed to pay an amount of R12 767 468,22 to Standard Bank account number 0202216657. However, that account ...
- 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 ...
Status: Immediate. NISSAN SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LIMITED v MARNITZ, NADIA N., KEEVY, KAREN N. AND FIRSTRAND BANK LIMITED. Please note that the media summary is intended for the benefit of the media and does not form part of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeal.
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.
13 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...
cases of First National Bank of Southern Africa Ltd v Perry NO1 and Nissan South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Marnitz NO,2 a development in our law had taken place in terms of which a bank which has credited a thief’s account with the proceeds of stolen money is liable to the owner of the money because it has no obligation to account to its
