In the income tax cases a different problem arises. The manufacturers were not at any immediate financial risk because they did not have to pay for the cloth until they had delivered and were entitled to be paid for the garments.
Wesbank further contended that this procedure is employed by most financial institutions in South Africa today in effecting asset based finance with the proviso to reserve ownership as security to protect itself.
Nor did Roshcon prove that Wesbank is estopped from claiming the three trucks. But the words of the rule indicate its limitations. Nor can it be rendered illegitimate by the mere fact that parties intend to avoid the operation of the law, and the selected course is as convenient in its result as another which would have brought them within it.
Our courts require no statutory powers to ignore pretence of this kind, and the law will always give effect to the real transaction between the parties. That is a form of delivery that is always carefully scrutinised by courts because it affords scope for third parties dealing with the possessor of the goods to be deceived into thinking that the possessor is also the owner thereof.
The contention that these are simulated transactions ignores the commercial legitimacy of a finance house seeking security for the financing transactions that they conclude. The blurring of this distinction between an honest transaction devised to avoid the provisions of a statute and a transaction falling within the prohibitory or taxing provisions of a statute but disguised to make it appear as if it does not, gives rise to much of the confusion which sometimes appears to accompany attempts to apply the maxim quoted above.
See Zandberg supra at Roshcon was granted a contract in early Septemberwhich required it to purchase five trucks which were to be fitted with specialized cranes to modify the trucks to suit the particular project.
But the words of the rule indicate its limitations.
The agreement said so explicitly and had a clear commercial purpose namely the provision of appropriate security for a financial transaction, in the form of ownership of the merx. Whether a particular transaction is a simulated transaction is therefore a question of its genuineness.
For example, it was entirely up to the respondent to determine how much cloth was imported and what garments should be made. Anchor was to effect certain modifications to the trucks.
The fifth respondent, Nissan Diesel SA Pty Limited Nissan Diesel is a supplier of motor vehicles and in particular supplied the five trucks which form the subject of this appeal. The parties wish to hide the fact that their real agreement or transaction falls within the prohibition or is subject to the tax, and so they dress it up in a guise which conveys the impression that it is outside of the prohibition or not subject to the tax.
Nor did Roshcon prove that Wesbank is estopped from claiming the three trucks. If it meant that whole categories of transactions were to be condemned without more, merely because they were motivated by a desire to avoid tax or the operation of some law, that would be contrary to what Innes J said in Zandberg v Van Zyl in the concluding sentence of the passage quoted above, namely that: But the dealer needs to be in possession in order to offer the vehicle for sale to its customers.
Therefore it never became the owner of the trucks nor was it able to pass ownership thereof to Roshcon. That in itself should have raised a red flag to Roshcon regarding the question of ownership.
On 21 NovemberRoshcon took delivery of the remaining three trucks, though it did not physically remove them, but only signed the handover sheet. In terms of clause 5. On 19 November two trucks were delivered to Roshcon having been modified.
The supplier agreement and the floor plan agreement provide the bank with the security which it requires and enables the dealer to offer the vehicle for sale to its customers.
Some of them have facts which are distinguishable from the present case. Wesbank contended that the onus of proving a simulated agreement rested on Roshcon and that Roshcon has failed to discharge such onus. Coal procurement process Electricity Generation Air Quality Offsets Programme New Build SSHAC Project Results Transmission Development Plan Guide to IPP programmes Ancilliary Services GCCA Report Grid Access Unit (Independent Power Producers) Supply Status (Adequacy Reports).
Learn how much Roshcon employees earn in bonuses from data reported by real employees. See how you compare with a free salary report! Sep 28, · Home / Press Office / Roshcon. Topic. New pan-African trade bloc holds much promise for SA business. Engineering News iPhone and Android Apps available for free download.
• Recommends, develops and oversees the implementation of an employment equity plan for the business unit that promotes the transformation of the organisation in line with company policy and Title: Human Capital Business Partner.
Wesbank could not have transferred ownership to Roshcon expressly or by conduct. On a conspectus of all the evidence Roshcon failed to prove that the floor plan agreement and the supplier agreement are a simulation or disguise.
Nor did Roshcon prove that Wesbank is estopped from claiming the three trucks. The result is the appeal is dismissed. # Eskom warns public of tender scams # Eskom Customer App now available Eskom Recruitment site temporarily closed Eskom to resume .Roshcon business plan