the costs of managing the shopping centres.property and financial management of the business and.the constitution of an executive committee.the incurrence of costs and other obligations.the distribution of income from the business.Simultaneously with that disposal their holding company, the fourth respondent, Adamax Property Projects Menlyn (Pty) Ltd (Adamax), concluded a detailed co ownership agreement (the COA) with the MEPF. Three companies (the Adamax co-owners), which owned a business operating three shopping centres, disposed of a 55 percent share in that business to the first appellant, the Municipal Employees’ Pension Fund (the MEPF), for a total price of R550 million. Note: Footnotes omitted and emphasis added That will depend upon the nature and terms of the commercial agreement between the parties and matters such as the provision made for its termination.” The mere fact that co-owners decide to exploit their co-ownership commercially will not of itself constitute the co-ownership as bound co-ownership. Whether it is depends upon the terms upon which the relationship is constituted. In other words it requires no special feature for the co-ownership consequential upon the relationship to qualify as bound co-ownership. The relationship is extrinsic to the co-ownership, but is not required to be exceptional. Co-ownership is not the primary or sole purpose of their relationship, which is governed by rules imposed by law, including statute, or determined by the parties’ themselves by way of binding agreements.
#Actio village free
‘ In summary therefore, I conclude, in accordance with the authorities discussed above, that the distinction between free and bound co-ownership is that in the former the co-ownership is the sole legal relationship between the co-owners, while in the latter there is a separate and distinct legal relationship between them of which the co-ownership is but one consequence.
0 kommentar(er)
