There is no doubt that the applicant delivered and installed the construction line and carried out other work after the offer and/or orders. However, the parties disagree on whether the applicant was appointed as part of MBSA`s subcontracting and in accordance with the JBCC rules for the performance of the work and whether the defendant who leaves the agreement must pay an outstanding amount. The initials JBCC represent the joint committee of the construction contract. It is an organization created in 1984 by various organizations related to construction. It is now fully representative of all players in the built environment and includes professions, contracting and subcontractor associations, the Black Business Council for the Built Environment and the South African Property Owners Association. In the construction sector in South Africa, JBCC agreements are by far the most widely used and widely accepted. They are also widespread in other African countries such as Botswana and Lesotho, but also others.  On August 11, 2015, counsel submitted a request to the applicant to the respondent seeking payment of the amount of R161,365, 65. The applicant submitted that the amount owed by the respondent to the respondent was for work performed in accordance with the proposed offer and was not part of the MBSA and JBCC agreements. In addition, the applicant merely committed the respondent in this amount and failed to pay the amount on time due to the lack of financial resources, and it is fair and equitable that the respondent be liquidated. Please note that following a board decision on Friday, November 29, 2019, JBCC intends to terminate the availability of all older versions, including Edition 4.1 (2004) and Edition 5.0 (Reprint 1 – 2007). The last two expenditures are still widely used by public authorities or.dem private sector, and the use of these expenditures for projects already obtained will continue for some time before such projects are completed  In the affidavit, the respondent denied that he was unable to repay his debts. This refusal is explained by completing a report of the registered auditors on November 13, 2015.
In this report, the G M Engelbrecht-Associates auditors make an unequivocal statement: „In good conscience, the company`s financial affairs are in good repute and internal financial controls are appropriate to the requirements of Companies Act 71 of 2008“ („Act“). In the affidavit, the applicant argues that the respondent did not make an offer to transfer the remaining money to the respondent`s receiver account or in pending court proceedings, arguing that this was a sign of good faith, adding to the respondent`s version some credibility that it was still solvent.