Legal updates and opinions
News / News
Prescription of claims: on-demand loans
A loan which is repayable on demand becomes due the moment it is advanced to the debtor. Accordingly, such a debt will prescribe (or be extinguished) three years after the date on which the loan is advanced, unless prescription is interrupted by an acknowledgment of liability by the debtor or the service on the debtor of any process whereby the lender claims payment of the debt. This was the finding of the Supreme Court of Appeal in Trinity Asset Management (Pty) Ltd v Grindstone Investments (Pty) Ltd (1040/15) [2016] ZASCA 135 (29 September 2016), despite the fact that the loan agreement in question provided that the loan would only be “due and payable” within 30 days from the date of delivery of the lender’s written demand.
The court distinguished between when a debt is “claimable” (ie when it becomes due) and when it is “payable”. The fact that the debtor may be given 30 days following demand within which to repay the loan does not alter the principle that the loan becomes due the moment it is advanced and, therefore, prescription starts running from that date. In this case, the lender had demanded repayment of the loan more than three years after the loan was advanced and the court held that the debt had, by that time, already prescribed.
The court considered the proposition that, if the parties clearly indicate that they intend demand to be a condition precedent for the debt to become due, prescription will only begin to run from the date of demand. However, the court did not feel it was necessary to decide whether this proposition was correct as, in its view, it was far from clear that the parties in this case had such an intention.
Until the courts have provided clarity on whether (and on what terms) parties may agree that an on-demand loan will only become due (and prescription will therefore only commence running) once demand for repayment of the loan has been made, lenders would be well-advised to structure their lending arrangements and internal processes in such a way as to minimize the risk of an on-demand debt owing to them being inadvertently extinguished in circumstances similar to this case.
Click on the link if you’ like to more information on Werksmans expertise in the Banking & Finance sector.
Latest News
Constitutional Court weakens a key defence for respondents in historical competition cases
by Pieter Steyn, Director The recent decision by the Constitutional Court in the case involving the Competition Commission and Pickfords [...]
South African Airways in Business Rescue – No retrenchments until the business rescue plan requires it
by Bradley Workman-Davies, Director and Neo Sewela, Candidate Attorney On 9 July 2020, the Labour Appeal Court ("Labour Appeal Court") [...]
Collection costs under the National Credit Act, 2005
by Tracy-Lee Janse van Rensburg, Director and Juliet Siwela, Candidate Attorney Collection costs In accordance with the judgment handed down [...]
BOOKING.COM and public perception
by Donvay Wegierski, Director The United States Supreme Court of Appeal has held that the US trade mark applications pending [...]
Constitutional Court clarifies when a contract and its enforcement will be invalid for being contrary to public policy
by Pieter Steyn, Director In a recent judgement involving Beadica 231 CC and others and the Oregon Trust, Sale’s Hire [...]
URGENT update: Amendments to regulations for lockdown level 3
by Jacques van Wyk, Director; Andre van Heerden, Senior Associate; and Thabisa Yantolo, Candidate Attorney On 31 July 2020 the [...]
