Banks caught amid EWC disaster

[Jabulani22]

To date, even though there is uncertainty, there are no changes to Section 25 and no other changes in suggestion to the Consitution, and EWC is still a bill.

They, the banks, don't have to say anything at this stage but is protecting themselves. There are processes, many processes the ordinary person don't understand, nevermind that the ordinary person doesn't understand the law at all. In the event EWC does occur, the banks will pursue the agreed to remedies, as standard in their agreements, and this is where other laws will be enacted and case law will be invoked. The banks are well aware and they very well know that a remedy to all this are already within our laws.

They need to act responsibly by protecting themselves and they also need to responsibly protect those they are contracted with. The remedy may very well sit where both parties meet, and having an open discussion about this now may go over and above 'everyone's' head.

If they have a stance it is not in joe public's favour , that is why they havent said anything , they are also playing coy as saying that they are for EWC with the former bonded person being liable would be international business suicide.
Yes they have contingencies , no none of them are beneficial to any but themselves.

 

[Fulcrum29]

If they have a stance it is not in joe public's favour , that is why they havent said anything , they are also playing coy as saying that they are for EWC with the former bonded person being liable would be international business suicide.
Yes they have contingencies , no none of them are beneficial to any but themselves.

Are you saying that Joe public is the white minority or the public interest?

 

[Jabulani22]

Are you saying that Joe public is the white minority or the public interest?

Joe public can be seen as anyone who is in contract with a bank over property , remember this is all property ,cars homes etc .
And if one demographic is going to be targetted as per history of afrika , then definately no support from the banks.

 

[Superman-7]

EWC is nothing but a symptom of a political party that is hell-bent on maintaining their dirty grip on power until Jesus comes home.

If EWC falls flat or is blocked by the thin thread of sanity we have left in this country, the ANC will find something else to shove down our throats. The mere mention of EWC is a blow to sentiment in this country.

The underlying issue is and always will be - the ANC is a selfish, self-serving, corrupt entity, and cannot be trusted with ANYTHING. Joe Soap has no idea what the ANC have in store for us. By the time something like EWC hits the news, the ANC have been orchestrating its various moving parts for months, if not years. We're just too happy we still have a semi-independent mainstream media who can let us poor souls in on just how far we'll have to bend over.

 

[KleinBoontjie]

So the property is the collateral, but the bank won't/can't take it from the government, if I don't pay. What a pickle.

 

[3WA]

If EWC falls flat or is blocked by the thin thread of sanity we have left in this country, the ANC will find something else to shove down our throats.

NHI, prescribed assets, bigger public sector wage bills...

 

[Fulcrum29]

Joe public can be seen as anyone who is in contract with a bank over property , remember this is all property ,cars homes etc .
And if one demographic is going to be targetted as per history of afrika , then definately no support from the banks.

Everyone who is contracted into credit agreements, those subscribed to the National Credit Act. That is like close to the whole pie we are talking about here.

All the banks are doing is avoiding a predicament they may place themselves in, meaning that they may unnecessarily implicate themselves which may have consequences.

Besides, even when Section 25 is amended it can still be possibly declared unconstitutional, the amendment may be incompatible, but all this needs to be tested in the court.

People are uncertain, and those who are still living on mommy’s and daddy’s money like to monger.

 

[Jabulani22]

Everyone who is contracted into credit agreements, those subscribed to the National Credit Act. That is like close to the whole pie we are talking about here.

All the banks are doing is avoiding a predicament they may place themselves in, meaning that they may unnecessarily implicate themselves which may have consequences.

Besides, even when Section 25 is amended it can still be possibly declared unconstitutional, the amendment may be incompatible, but all this needs to be tested in the court.

People are uncertain, and those who are still living on mommy’s and daddy’s money like to monger.

I said this , you are just repeating it and giving it a new look so it doesnt sound so bad .

Yeah possibly , where in the history of land grabs in afrika has it been without the party in charge's blessing ?

10 years ago people said it will never happen , now we are discussing how it may happen , slippery slope is real.

 

[Fulcrum29]

I said this , you are just repeating it and giving it a new look so it doesnt sound so bad .

No, you said this,

The banks refusal to answer questions shows their stance clearly , they have most probably already been in secret discussions with the ruining party and have had all their fears assuaged , meaning joe public is gonna get it .

and I said this,

They need to act responsibly by protecting themselves and they also need to responsibly protect those they are contracted with. The remedy may very well sit where both parties meet, and having an open discussion about this now may go over and above 'everyone's' head.

where you missed the part that the banks must act responsibly towards those they are contracted with.

 

[Jabulani22]

No, you said this,



and I said this,



where you missed the part that the banks must act responsibly towards those they are contracted with.

I said
If they have a stance it is not in joe public's favour , that is why they havent said anything , they are also playing coy as saying that they are for EWC with the former bonded person being liable would be international business suicide.
Yes they have contingencies , no none of them are beneficial to any but themselves.
Which is what i was referring to when you tried to sugar coat it .

You said
where you missed the part that the banks must act responsibly towards those they are contracted with.

I say , i never missed anything , its naive to assume the banks are not already onboard with the EWC train and have full intentions to try throw the book at people who are bonded and try to use the old my land got EWCéd thing.

OR
maybe you are correct , im sure history isnt filled with examples of companies being unscrupulous and caring little for contracts which inconvienience them.

 

[Jabulani22]

The question is, Do we really need banks anymore?

They only exist for the fractional banking method to bleed us all dry via usury.

 

[Fulcrum29]

I said
If they have a stance it is not in joe public's favour , that is why they havent said anything , they are also playing coy as saying that they are for EWC with the former bonded person being liable would be international business suicide.
Yes they have contingencies , no none of them are beneficial to any but themselves.
Which is what i was referring to when you tried to sugar coat it .

You said
where you missed the part that the banks must act responsibly towards those they are contracted with.

I say , i never missed anything , its naive to assume the banks are not already onboard with the EWC train and have full intentions to try throw the book at people who are bonded and try to use the old my land got EWCéd thing.

OR
maybe you are correct , im sure history isnt filled with examples of companies being unscrupulous and caring little for contracts which inconvienience them.

Just going to add this. Never imply anything when in a contract other than abiding by the contract. The banks may already have a remedy, but announcing it prematurely may mean that people may apply that remedy elsewhere.

Common law common sense.

 

[Jabulani22]

Just going to add this. Never imply anything when in a contract other than abiding by the contract. The banks may already have a remedy, but announcing it prematurely may mean that people may apply that remedy elsewhere.

Common law common sense.

Your trust in these banks is sorely misplaced , lets see how that common law/sense pans out once EWC is the law .

 

[SoldierMan]

No, you said this,



and I said this,



where you missed the part that the banks must act responsibly towards those they are contracted with.

You kidding, right? You have way too much trust in the banks if you think like this.

 

[noxibox]

That'll be like trying to get etolls paid, getting orders for hundreds of thousands/millions of people, they'll spend hundreds of years in courts getting through it all

Even once they get a court order they'll still have a big problem recovering anything. Movable assets will get moved. Those who can will probably already have their savings somewhere the bank can't touch them. The person quite possibly won't even be in the country anymore. Those that haven't probably don't have anything the bank can take.

 

[noxibox]

where you missed the part that the banks must act responsibly towards those they are contracted with.

They have a long history of screwing over people who are struggling to pay their mortgage, so I would expect them to attempt to do the same if someone loses their property to the government. Only they'll have less chance of recovering anything, because the key asset they'd normally grab and sell for cheap won't be available.

 

[MrGray]

Besides, even when Section 25 is amended it can still be possibly declared unconstitutional, the amendment may be incompatible, but all this needs to be tested in the court.

But could it though? Since this is a change to the constitution, the amendment becomes part of the constitution, so this would be testing if the constitution is constitutional.

 

[Fulcrum29]

They have a long history of screwing over people who are struggling to pay their mortgage, so I would expect them to attempt to do the same if someone loses their property to the government. Only they'll have less chance of recovering anything, because the key asset they'd normally grab and sell for cheap won't be available.

Under what circumstances and which party broke the contract?

 

[Mike Hoxbig]

They have a long history of screwing over people who are struggling to pay their mortgage

If you're struggling to pay your mortgage, you are screwing the bank by breaking your agreement.

Their long history is actually them just screwing you back...

 

[Fulcrum29]

But could it though? Since this is a change to the constitution, the amendment becomes part of the constitution, so this would be testing if the constitution is constitutional.

This is a good post made on the topic,

OK so legally speaking here is what is going to happen.

Even if the legislation goes through for EWC, the banks are still going to sue the state and the NEW OWNERS for theft (on the basis that there was no willing seller and no financial transaction). This will be the banks way of challenging the legislation in court. The courts will then pass this all the way back to the Constitutional Court who will have to decide if this law is constitutional or not. If we are lucky, and if they are clever the EWC law will be thrown out as unconstitutional (it doesn't matter if they've changed the constitution or not), if the Constitutional court rules otherwise, then the law will be chucked out. The CC may rule that the law (even with the constitutional change) still violates the principle of equality for all. So the government would then have to throw out the bill of rights as well.

If the above fails, for whatever reason, then the banks will sue the new owner on the basis of unjustified enrichment. And they will take your bond and place it upon that guy as his new legal responsibility, since when he inherited the property he ALSO inherited ALL the legal rights and responsibilities that go with it. The bond is linked to the property. If a person is deprived of that property he cannot technically be forced to pay for it (it's not like a personal cash loan - it's mortgage). The banks are under an obligation to see it restored to it's rightful owner or to place the obligations of the property onto a new owner.

Finally there will be all kinds of tax implications, since any new owner will be liable for property gains tax (which he will no doubt be unable to pay). So there will have to be many changes to tax law.

though they will be able to pursue the new owners, the new owners may also be in a position which is at odds and it will be the state who have placed them in that position. This is where contract law, credit law, property law, etc. and our rights come into play. The state may very well carry the burden they themselves have legislated. As I said, this needs to be tested and to be tested their needs to be expropriation without compensation under these conditions. We won't know until it eventually happens, where it will or not.

The most dangerous point to all this is the state advocating themselves to be the decision-maker on expropriation where the court is relegated to only practice and exercise their mandate over any disputes. Under these circumstances, the state may award property, 'to be occupied', which may only then be disputed in the court. This will cause amok, no doubt, but it may still be remedied... and it may take years.

Then property owners, individuals or entities which owns their own property, where the bank has no play other than where creditors apply. Huge risk which will result in invested parties withdrawing in total, except those who get kickbacks...

The banks, they cannot imply or give remedy to something which may or may not happen. This is where contract law meets common law.

All this may result in proper case law.

Anyway, I'm not an expert on the topic. I only really understand mercantile law.