根据2005年《国家信贷法》的要求,交付第129(1)条强制通知

Sarah Govender, M. Kelly-Louw
{"title":"根据2005年《国家信贷法》的要求,交付第129(1)条强制通知","authors":"Sarah Govender, M. Kelly-Louw","doi":"10.17159/1727-3781/2018/V21I0A3466","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In terms of section 129(1) of the National Credit Act 34 of 2005 (NCA), a credit provider first needs to provide a consumer with notice of his default and a list of possible remedies to overcome the default, before enforcing the agreement in a court of law. This ensures that the consumer is given the opportunity to remedy his default by, for example, undergoing debt counselling instead of having to incur legal costs when defending legal action brought against him by the credit provider. Before the National Credit Amendment Act 19 of 2014 came into operation, the NCA neglected to specify how this notice should be delivered to consumers, and this has led to various conflicting decisions. The matter was eventually settled by the Constitutional Court in two separate cases. After the Constitutional Court pronounced on the matter, the National Credit Amendment Act came into operation prescribing the manner in which the notice must be delivered. Consumer-credit legislation that existed prior to the NCA coming into operation generally also made provision for similar notices to be delivered to consumers. In this article we briefly look at how the previous consumer-credit legislation dealt with the delivery of similar notices and also consider how the delivery of notices is currently governed by the NCA. Most of the problematic issues surrounding the delivery of the section 129(1) notice have been resolved, but some still remain. One such example is found in a recent Supreme Court of Appeal case, where despite the correct delivery of the notice to the consumer, the notice caused unintended jurisdictional problems for a credit provider trying to enforce the credit agreement \n  \n ","PeriodicalId":137765,"journal":{"name":"Law & Society: Private Law - Financial Law eJournal","volume":"80 5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-11-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Delivery of the Compulsory Section 129(1) Notice as Required by the National Credit Act of 2005\",\"authors\":\"Sarah Govender, M. Kelly-Louw\",\"doi\":\"10.17159/1727-3781/2018/V21I0A3466\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In terms of section 129(1) of the National Credit Act 34 of 2005 (NCA), a credit provider first needs to provide a consumer with notice of his default and a list of possible remedies to overcome the default, before enforcing the agreement in a court of law. This ensures that the consumer is given the opportunity to remedy his default by, for example, undergoing debt counselling instead of having to incur legal costs when defending legal action brought against him by the credit provider. Before the National Credit Amendment Act 19 of 2014 came into operation, the NCA neglected to specify how this notice should be delivered to consumers, and this has led to various conflicting decisions. The matter was eventually settled by the Constitutional Court in two separate cases. After the Constitutional Court pronounced on the matter, the National Credit Amendment Act came into operation prescribing the manner in which the notice must be delivered. Consumer-credit legislation that existed prior to the NCA coming into operation generally also made provision for similar notices to be delivered to consumers. In this article we briefly look at how the previous consumer-credit legislation dealt with the delivery of similar notices and also consider how the delivery of notices is currently governed by the NCA. Most of the problematic issues surrounding the delivery of the section 129(1) notice have been resolved, but some still remain. One such example is found in a recent Supreme Court of Appeal case, where despite the correct delivery of the notice to the consumer, the notice caused unintended jurisdictional problems for a credit provider trying to enforce the credit agreement \\n  \\n \",\"PeriodicalId\":137765,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Law & Society: Private Law - Financial Law eJournal\",\"volume\":\"80 5 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-11-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Law & Society: Private Law - Financial Law eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.17159/1727-3781/2018/V21I0A3466\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law & Society: Private Law - Financial Law eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17159/1727-3781/2018/V21I0A3466","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

根据2005年第34号《国家信贷法》(NCA)第129(1)条,信贷提供者首先需要向消费者提供其违约通知以及克服违约的可能补救措施清单,然后才能在法院执行协议。这确保消费者有机会通过接受债务咨询等方式弥补其违约行为,而不必在为信贷提供者对他提起的法律诉讼进行辩护时承担法律费用。在2014年《国家信用修正案》生效之前,国家信用局没有明确规定如何向消费者发送通知,这导致了各种相互矛盾的决定。这个问题最终由宪法法院在两个不同的案件中解决。宪法裁判所做出判决后,规定通知方式的《国家信用修改法》开始生效。在NCA生效之前存在的消费者信贷立法通常也规定了向消费者发送类似通知的规定。在本文中,我们简要介绍了以前的消费者信贷立法如何处理类似通知的交付,并考虑了NCA目前如何管理通知的交付。关于第129(1)条通知送达的大部分问题已经解决,但仍有一些问题存在。在最近的一个最高上诉法院案件中可以找到这样的一个例子,尽管通知正确地传递给了消费者,但该通知给试图执行信贷协议的信贷提供者造成了意想不到的管辖权问题
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Delivery of the Compulsory Section 129(1) Notice as Required by the National Credit Act of 2005
In terms of section 129(1) of the National Credit Act 34 of 2005 (NCA), a credit provider first needs to provide a consumer with notice of his default and a list of possible remedies to overcome the default, before enforcing the agreement in a court of law. This ensures that the consumer is given the opportunity to remedy his default by, for example, undergoing debt counselling instead of having to incur legal costs when defending legal action brought against him by the credit provider. Before the National Credit Amendment Act 19 of 2014 came into operation, the NCA neglected to specify how this notice should be delivered to consumers, and this has led to various conflicting decisions. The matter was eventually settled by the Constitutional Court in two separate cases. After the Constitutional Court pronounced on the matter, the National Credit Amendment Act came into operation prescribing the manner in which the notice must be delivered. Consumer-credit legislation that existed prior to the NCA coming into operation generally also made provision for similar notices to be delivered to consumers. In this article we briefly look at how the previous consumer-credit legislation dealt with the delivery of similar notices and also consider how the delivery of notices is currently governed by the NCA. Most of the problematic issues surrounding the delivery of the section 129(1) notice have been resolved, but some still remain. One such example is found in a recent Supreme Court of Appeal case, where despite the correct delivery of the notice to the consumer, the notice caused unintended jurisdictional problems for a credit provider trying to enforce the credit agreement    
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信