oa De Rebus - Standard suretyship wording is enforceable : opinion



I refer to the article by Robert dos Santos 'The lazy man's suretyship: Are unlimited debts of limited application?' (2015 (Sept) DR 26). I believe that it is irresponsible to argue in favour of a conclusion and to disguise the flaws in the agreement by suggesting that a commonly and correctly held view is 'questionable' or that 'the possibility arises that... there may be non-compliance'. The author would have us believe that a suretyship in terms of which the surety is liable for 'the due and punctual payment and performance by the debtor of all debts and obligations of whatsoever nature and howsoever arising which the debtor may now or in future owe to the creditor' may not be enforceable because 6 of the General Laws Amendment Act 50 of 1956 (the Act), requires the scope of the surety's obligations to be ascertainable from the document.


Article metrics loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error