If the LYA certifies that there is a liability that is a credit contract for the purposes of the NCA; and, if so , the applicant  has filed a request for payment amounting to R1,303,120.05 (one million of three hundred and three hundred and twenty hundred and twenty hundred and twenty hundred) plus interest of 18% per annum, calculated from 26 June 2018 to the date of final payment. The underlying reason for the debt is an assessment of the debt (“AoD”) that the respondent concluded on August 13, 2015 in Potchefstroom with respect to three (3) amounts in its favour: if a court were to be satisfied that the written authorization of guilt is submitted to the NCA, the court may be required to make a decision within the meaning of Section 130(4)b) of the NCA. , which states that “the agreement, in whatever form, but without agreement in the subsection (2), constitutes a guarantee of credit when a person commits or promises, as part of this agreement, to fulfil, at his request, any obligation of another consumer regarding a credit facility or a credit transaction to which this Law applies.” 5.1 With respect to the withdrawal contract and the recognition of the debt agreement, the first defendant clearly agreed and agreed to pay the aforementioned amounts to the applicant. The applicant did not pay money to the first accused in the form of the retraction contract or the recognition of the debt contract. This is what happened to the second defendant with respect to the loan contract, which is excluded from the law. The AODs provide for effective implementation of debt by creditors, in accordance with public policy in South Africa. The underlying means that are not covered by law are not legal credit contracts, infringements, land leases and leases for personal property. If the LYA meets the definition of a credit transaction, then it is a credit contract for the purposes of the NCA.  It is customary for the applicant and respondent to have been friends for 18 years. The applicant provided several financial assistance to the respondent and his family. They entered into formal commercial relationships, supported by leases of real estate belonging to the applicant. In his version, the applicant had the right to entrust the sale to a property owned by the respondent.
A reasonable assessment of this relationship shows that the mere fact that the parties were friends who had just done business by chance, where one friend made loans to the other in times of emergency, did not divert attention from the fact that they were acting in poverty. It should be noted that with respect to a credit contract to which the NCA applies, a “consumer” expressly challenged the fact that he agreed to settle the obligations of the second defendant to the applicant under the withdrawal contract and the recognition of the debt contract. “In other words, I dispute that the withdrawal agreement and the recognition of the debt agreements are credit guarantees, as provided by the NCA. (the law) “An agreement, in whatever form, but without agreement, Article 10, paragraph 2, of the 2002/2002 Council Regulation (EC) 2002/2002 concerning the procedure for the application of Article 100, paragraph 3, regulation (EC) n” 2008/2002 of 23 July 1994, relating to the Council`s Directive 92/42/EC of 20 July 1998, relating to the application of Article 10, paragraph 1, Regulation (EC) No. 1000/2014 of the Council[ 17).