Ramos hits back after Public Protector guns for ABSA

f2wohf said:
Absolutely not, you’re welcome to try to teach me my job, I draft contracts to buy existing entities et least five times a year.

The buyer specifies the liabilities he is willing to assume while leaving the other liabilities with the seller.

In this case, the liabilities regarding the bailout were left with Sanlam.
Click to expand...

If there was such a contract then its unlawful since Absa cannot divorce the assets (bailout) from their resultant liabilities (repayment). You can draft any contract you want but it cannot be unlawful. And why are we discussing the lawfulness of this bailout when two judges have already considered it unlawful? To recover the money SARB simply has to sue Bankorp which has changed to Absa. It doens't matter who the shareholders are.
 
R13... said:
What are the odds she drops the whole thing by conceding at the last minute. Zuma style. She's obviously being instructed by outside parties
Click to expand...

I won't be surprised, she is really all over the show. But her competence or lack of doesn't detract from the fact that the bailout was unlawful/corrupt and the money should be refunded.
 
diesel said:
This is nothing more than an attempt by the Zuma faction to get revenge or pressure Absa to assist the gupta's with bank accounts.
Click to expand...

This is why apartheid corruption existed for decades, because people kept judging the issues based on who's on the receiving side. We complain about the Guptas yet this is the very thing Ruperts did with Bankorp.
 
rza said:
I won't be surprised, she is really all over the show. But her competence or lack of doesn't detract from the fact that the bailout was unlawful/corrupt and the money should be refunded.
Click to expand...

By who specifically should it be refunded?
 
rza said:
If there was such a contract then its unlawful since Absa cannot divorce the assets (bailout) from their resultant liabilities (repayment). You can draft any contract you want but it cannot be unlawful. And why are we discussing the lawfulness of this bailout when two judges have already considered it unlawful? To recover the money SARB simply has to sue Bankorp which has changed to Absa. It doens't matter who the shareholders are.
Click to expand...



As long as the two parties agree, you can perfectly state that the seller keeps the liabilities for what happened during his time.

This is in fact what happens in most corporate share purchase agreement, the buyer will take on all the current and known liabilities, the seller will usually be responsible for the unknown and special liabilities.

How would it be unlawful if the two parties willingly agree to it?

But I guess judge Davis is just a silly moron who doesn’t have a clue, I guess I draft illegal agreements all the time, I guess the several prominent lawfirms who vetted and issued legal opinions on such agreements are wrong and I guess Mkhwebane with her 0 years of legal practice must be right! She should actually replace Mogoeng Mogoeng and make all case law in this country...

You should send your CV here, you two will work wonderfully together. http://www.pprotect.org/?q=vacancies
 
Last edited:
rza said:
By Bankorp, which still exists through Absa. It really doesn't matter who the shareholders are. The company still exists.
Click to expand...

But it didn't exist at the start of the bailout did it?

And as always, you have no idea how these agreements work and are structured.
 
f2wohf said:


As long as the two parties agree, you can perfectly state that the seller keeps the liabilities for what happened during his time.

This is in fact what happens in most corporate share purchase agreement, the buyer will take on all the current and known liabilities, the seller will usually be responsible for the unknown and special liabilities.

How would it be unlawful if the two parties willingly agree to it?

But I guess judge Davis is just a silly moron who doesn’t have a clue, I guess I draft illegal agreements all the time, I guess the several prominent lawfirms who vetted and issued legal opinions on such agreements are wrong and I guess Mkhwebane with her 0 years of legal practice must be right! She should actually replace Mogoeng Mogoeng and make all case law in this country...

You should send your CV here, you two will work wonderfully together. http://www.pprotect.org/?q=vacancies
Click to expand...

Formalities of a contract are clear dude, you can't enter into an unlawful contract, so don't come here with 'any contract goes as long as two people agree' because that is wrong. The bailout has already been declared unlawful by three investigations, so that contract is void as far as it relates to the bailout. Absa by virtue of deriving the assets is responsible for the liability as well regardless of what their purchase agreement says.
 
ToxicBunny said:
But it didn't exist at the start of the bailout did it?

And as always, you have no idea how these agreements work and are structured.
Click to expand...

Yes I don't know anything, yet two judges and one consultancy firm agree with me.
 
rza said:
Yes I don't know anything, yet two judges and one consultancy firm agree with me.
Click to expand...

Which judges specifically agree with the outcome of the money HAVING to be returned now, and which consultancy...
 
rza said:
Formalities of a contract are clear dude, you can't enter into an unlawful contract, so don't come here with 'any contract goes as long as two people agree' because that is wrong. The bailout has already been declared unlawful by three investigations, so that contract is void as far as it relates to the bailout. Absa by virtue of deriving the assets is responsible for the liability as well regardless of what their purchase agreement says.
Click to expand...

How is the purchase of Bankorp unlawful?

The only unlawful contract is the bailout agreement, liabilities of which remained with Sanlam in accordance with the purchase agreement and were not transferred with Bankorp to Absa. Hence, the bailout reparations should be targetted at Sanlam, and its shareholders of the time.

No point discussing further, judge David is stupid. Mhkwebane and you know better...

http://www.702.co.za/articles/26130...why-absa-wasn-t-ordered-to-pay-back-the-money
 
rza said:
Yes I don't know anything, yet two judges and one consultancy firm agree with me.
Click to expand...

BS.

They agree that the bailout was unlawful.

They don't agree with the fact that ABSA should pay.
 
ToxicBunny said:
Which judges specifically agree with the outcome of the money HAVING to be returned now, and which consultancy...
Click to expand...

The judges said recovering the money is not advisable, but no one said recovering the money would be unlawful. It's very easy to recover that money, regardless of the prescription argument raised by some. Prescription does not run on corrupt activities. And change in the shareholders of an entity don't matter.
 
rza said:
The judges said recovering the money is not advisable, but no one said recovering the money would be unlawful. It's very easy to recover that money, regardless of the prescription argument raised by some. Prescription does not run on corrupt activities. And change in the shareholders of an entity don't matter.
Click to expand...

There are not enough facepalms for the outright stupidity...

But which Consultancy and which judges... NAME them.
 
rza said:
The judges said recovering the money is not advisable, but no one said recovering the money would be unlawful. It's very easy to recover that money, regardless of the prescription argument raised by some. Prescription does not run on corrupt activities. And change in the shareholders of an entity don't matter.
Click to expand...

Try that.

ABSA will be in its right to rescind the sale because it doesn't comply with the conditions purchase agreement of Bankorp and the whole thing will be a bigger mess than it is right now.

You really have zero concept of warranties, liabilities.

Sanlam agreed to undertake this responsibility, hence it lies with Samlam and not ABSA.

Last message, it's like speaking to a wall so far.
 
Yes, Jacob Zuma influenced me, says #BusiMkhwebane

Johannesburg - Public Protector Busi Mkhwebane has for the first time revealed that President Jacob Zuma’s input influenced the final CIEX report on the R1.125 billion given by the SA Reserve Bank (SARB) to Bankorp, one of Absa’s predecessors.

In her answering affidavit filed in the high court in Pretoria on Friday, Mkhwebane said her draft remedial action directed Zuma to set up a judicial commission of inquiry.

“From the discussion during our meeting (with Zuma) I became concerned that my draft remedial action to direct the president to establish a judicial commission may face similar difficulties as currently faced in the State of Capture report,” reads Mkhwebane’s affidavit.
Click to expand...

More:
https://www.iol.co.za/news/politics...2189163?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social
 
Even more reasons why this cow is going to get her arse handed to her by SARB and ABSA
 
f2wohf said:
How is the purchase of Bankorp unlawful?

The only unlawful contract is the bailout agreement, liabilities of which remained with Sanlam in accordance with the purchase agreement and were not transferred with Bankorp to Absa. Hence, the bailout reparations should be targetted at Sanlam, and its shareholders of the time.

No point discussing further, judge David is stupid. Mhkwebane and you know better...

http://www.702.co.za/articles/26130...why-absa-wasn-t-ordered-to-pay-back-the-money
Click to expand...

Let me use an example so you can understand that it is unlawful to separate assets from liabilities in this case. Let's say I sell you a car that is still under finance by Wesbank, and we enter into a purchase agreement whereby I hand over the car to you while I retain the responsibility for the liability in terms of the amount still outstanding to Wesbank? If I fail to pay Wesbank, is Wesbank right to the asset precluded by our purchase agreement whereby I'm responsible for the liability while you take the asset? Try using your argument on Wesbank and see if it will see the light of day.

If you are struggling to answer the question then go back to studying the formalities of a contract.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X