In this dissertation I discuss a selection of the amendments to the National Credit Act 34 of 2005 by the National Credit Amendment Act 19 of 2014. The purpose of this is to evaluate whether the amendments accord with the purpose of the National Credit Act. More specifically, whether the amendments are in line with promoting equity in the credit market by balancing the respective rights and responsibilities of credit providers and consumers in section 3(1) (d) of the National Credit Act. This is done under to answer the question of whether the amendments favour the consumer over the credit provider. Where the amendment are overall consumer oriented, the effect of this would shift the moral hazard of consumer debt to the consumer and thereby create an imbalance in the credit market. To answer this question I look at the amendments of sections 86(2), (11), 89(5) (c), 129(3) & (4), 130 and the introduction of sections 71A and 129(5),(6) and (7). In the course of my discussion I refer to various case law which prompted the amendments and or, which influenced the interpretation of the provisions which were amended. I also take into consideration the views and opinions of legal scholars who have written extensively on the National Credit Act, often in light of judgements handed down by our courts. My discussion concludes with the assertion that the amendments I have chosen, being those which dictate the rights and responsibilities of credit providers and consumers, have the effect of favouring the consumer over the credit provider, by either burdening the credit provider with more duties when enforcing their agreements with consumers, or, by allowing the consumer greater leeway despite them breaching of their agreements.
Mini Dissertation (LLM)--University of Pretoria, 2017.