In 1790, when Virginia and Maryland abandoned the country to create the District of Columbia, was an example of a surrender. However, the SCA found that at the time the bank abandoned the debt, nothing could be divested, as GD Brews had to pay the debts in accordance with its agreement with Brayton and JP Brews. From a legal point of view, the transfer by transfer of a non-existent right is a nullity. The SCA also reviewed the authorized correspondence between the bank`s lawyers and the lawyers for LA DG Brews. It concluded that the parties clearly intended to transfer its full payment request to the bank. GD Brews attempted to amend its claim by stating that the assignment was a precondition for payment, but the Tribunal in particular dismissed this attempt as inconsistent with the assignment. You will recall that at the time of the transfer, the transferred debt becomes an asset in the estate of the transferee member. Once the cedant`s debts were repaid to the debtor, the assignment would be improperly enriched if it kept the [old] receiving of the cedant, as it would have received both the ceding money and the debt. In such circumstances, a terminated agreement comes into play. See z.B. Lief/Detmann 1964 (2) SA 525 (A), where it says: FirstRand Bank Ltd (bank) obtained the verdict against Brayton Carlswald (Pty) Ltd (Brayton) and Jonathan Paul Brews (JP Brews) (joint accused) in an earlier case for payment of a sum of money. He tied up Brayton`s properties to execute the verdict. Gordan came to the rescue of Donald Brews (DG Brews), who agreed to lend money to the defendants, whose proceeds would repay their debts to the bank.
As collateral for the loan, the defendants (i) agreed to acquire shares in a company; (ii) register a mortgage on related real estate; and (iii) that the Bank`s judgment would be transferred in favour of DG Brews. The bank also agreed to transfer its judgment charge to LA DG Brews against the payment of DG Brews` debt, plus an additional amount. After further complications, DG Brews paid the bank and, some time later, the bank transferred its debts and additional rights to DG Brews. Given that GD Brews considered that it had acquired responsibility for the transfer decision as collateral for its credit, LA DG Brews asked South Gauteng High Court to replace it as an enforcement creditor. A beneficiary of a fiduciary company, which is Brayton`s sole shareholder, sought approval to intervene in LA DG Brews` application, as it and its subsidiaries would suffer direct financial losses and lose their livelihood. The Tribunal rejected DG Brews` request to be replaced as an enforcement creditor.