1. Are the three amounts listed in the AoD credit contracts within the meaning of the NCA? In friend/Sendal 2015 (1) SA 395 (GP), the Tribunal found that AODs that provide for a deferred payment of a debt (p.B. payment plan) may constitute credit contracts that are covered by law. There are exceptions to this rule, for example. B, the law would not apply to such an AOD if it were concluded between a company and a corporation and (a) the corporation has an asset or annual turnover greater than R.1 million or b) the liability exceeds R250,000 (see paragraph 4, paragraph 1, points a) and b) above). However, a person who grants a single credit of an amount that exceeds the threshold in the form of an AOD and does not intend to obtain successive LYDs is not required to be a registered lender. This definition could provide the answer, since debt recognition could not qualify the consumer as another means under the above definition. This also applies to debt recognition and it should not be debated that the signing of a debt assessment should not be done without due consideration. “There can be only one conclusion that the NCA was not intended to govern transaction agreements if the agreements or underlying reasons had not been taken into account by law.” 5.1 With respect to the withdrawal contract and the recognition of the debt agreement, the first defendant clearly agreed and agreed to pay the aforementioned amounts to the applicant. The applicant did not pay money to the first accused in the form of the retraction contract or the recognition of the debt contract. This is what happened to the second defendant with respect to the loan contract, which is excluded from the law. (b) the portion to which funds or credits are paid as part of a deposit transaction;  The relationship between the parties underlying the AOD shows by an overwhelming majority everything but a family relationship.
In addition to the fact that the parties are friends, the agreements that have highlighted the AoD are clear cases, which are important or advantageous to the applicant and which are clearly concluded in length. The Tribunal applied to the VIEWS the definition of a “credit transaction” with respect to s 8 (4)) and found that the LYA provided for a deferral of payment to the due date plus at least a “sum or a fee” (the cost of preparing the AOD) within the meaning of the AOD (The Carter Trading case in point 17). As a result, the LYA was subject to the definition of a credit transaction and was submitted to the NCA. A credit guarantee relating to S 8 (5) of the NCA is a kind of credit contract in which a person guarantees the bonds of another consumer arising from a credit facility or credit transaction. For an ANCA s 4 (2)c, a credit guarantee is only subject to the provisions of the NCA if the credit facility or credit transaction to which this credit guarantee relates is governed by the NCA. Since the existence of the credit guarantee depends on the existence of the debt under the credit facility or credit transaction, a credit guarantee should not be subject to the provisions of the NCA if the debt to which it relates is not subject to the law. If the IDA demonstrates the existence of a debt that is a credit contract for the purposes of the NCA, and if so, it should be considered that a “consumer” for a credit contract to which the NCA applies  means that the AoD, which was executed by the respondent in favour of the respondent, represents a capital amount of R831,000.0.