Agreement Silinda

[17] However, according to the first respondent, the sales contracts were entered into on April 21, 2009 on the clear condition, The second respondent, Henriq 2617 (Pty) Ltd and Martiens Landgoed (Pty) Ltd, will enter into separate lease agreements under which the second respondent would lease the real estate to Henriq 2617 (Pty) Ltd and Martiens Landgoed (Pty) Ltd (or their competitor) for a period of five years. 40. As regards termination, the first defendant argues that the provision of the termination reservation in the SLA concerns the termination of the SLA and not the project. For this reason, it was not necessary to notify the first complainant, as no contract was terminated. If the argument that the termination of the contract under the SLA relates to the termination of the agreement that is to be included in the panel, this would mean that there is no provision in the SLA about what happens when a party violates the contract and does not permanently re-infringe. But that would be absurd insofar as it would make the agreement toothless and therefore irrelevant. (a) it is a lease for all land between Leona Archery, in her capacity as Provincial Director of the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform, who is deemed to be duly approved as a lessor, and Domar Boerdery Beiange (Proprietary) Limited, represented by Dirk Wouter Hurter and Douw Anton Hurter, who would be duly approved as tenants; have been closed; [4] The main conditions of the contract for the sale of the property, finally signed on 12 May 2009 (Annex C2, registration S. would continue and be signed if the sales contracts are signed; [9] As I will explain below, the parties have different versions of what concerns the alleged lease, Annex SN 14, which is also annexed to Annex SN 28, registration at p. 167, and the second contains an important insertion to which I will refer shortly and whose author is not known. . .

.