Many contracts and transaction agreements have „non-variation clauses. This would suggest that no variation in the terms it contains is possible, but in Shifren, among others, against SA Sentrale Ko-op Graanmaatskappy Bpk 1964 (2) SA 343 (O), it was expressly stipulated that variations can be sought, but this must be done in writing. The debtor submitted that the parties varied the settlement agreement so that he would pay eight monthly payments of $100,000 in full performance of his obligations under the transaction agreement. The creditor denied that an amendment had been agreed and argued that the subsequent agreement of $100,000 per month related to a separate transaction for the sale of certain Moroccan and Arab antiquities. I therefore assert that a spouse without a member`s right is legally entitled to apply to amend the decision that takes the exact name of the pension fund. Even in cases where an approval document has been signed, the non-member spouse may correct or correct the consent document to reflect the correct names of the pension fund as a result of a common error between the parties. However, if the parties have agreed on the percentage to be paid to the spouse of third countries, the latter is not entitled to go to court in proportion to a percentage higher than agreed, unless they have been forced or the agreement has been concluded fraudulently. There are several reasons to apply for variation, including, but not limited to fraud, undue influence or undue pressure to sign or accept certain provisions. In Gollach – Gomperts v Universal Mills and Produce Co 1978 (1) SA 914 (AD) at 922 C-H, it was found that a reasonable error by one of the parties could be relied upon as a valid reason for variation or resignation. A farsi settlement agreement (the agreement) was signed by both parties. The agreement provided for mr. Shavleyan to pay $1.5 million to Mr.

Simantob until May 21, 2010, in order to fully and definitively oppose all claims between the parties (both Sotheby`s revenues and other business). It is also significant that the agreement provided that if the payment was not fully made by the due date, a fine of $1,000 per day would be due. As the mathematician could no doubt see immediately, this corresponds to an interest rate of 24.3%pa, while the total sum was pending, but 36,500,000%pa, if only 1 dollar remained unpaid. It was agreed that the previous sentence in this market was not unusual. By contacting our firm`s headquarters in Durban, Mr. P. Lutge Incorporated`s specialized lawyers can help you vary your divorce contract to maximize your benefits in the following areas: The case is a useful reminder of the law as it has been presented in a long history of business. The so-called Pinnel (1603) 5 Coke Rep 117a rule established that the payment of less than the due date to satisfy a larger one cannot be a satisfaction of the whole.