As A and B are married in community of property, both A and B have equal ownership and management over all community property. This means that B cannot unilaterally sell community property without the consent of A. Thus, A's allegation that the contract cannot be upheld is valid.
The sale of the antique chair would be considered a disposition of community property, and according to the Matrimonial Property Act, any disposition of community property requires the written consent of both spouses. B's failure to obtain A's consent renders the contract with X invalid, and X cannot claim ownership of the antique chair.
If X has already paid B for the antique chair, A may be entitled to claim half of the proceeds as co-owner of the community property. However, this would be subject to the specific terms of the community of property agreement between A and B.
In conclusion, the contract between B and X for the sale of the antique chair cannot be upheld as B did not obtain the required consent from A as co-owner of the community property.
A and B are married in community of property. B concludes a contract with X (the third
party) in terms of which B sells an antique chair (held as an investment) to X. B does
not get consent from A to sell the chair. Consequently, A alleges that the contract
cannot be upheld
1 answer
1 answer