Using a 72 hour clause in property purchase agreements

Sellers strive to obtain the highest price in the shortest period. In practice, property is often sold subject to a suspensive condition, the most common being that that the sale will be null and void if (for example) a loan is not obtained from a bank within fourteen days.

Sellers strive to obtain the highest price in the shortest period.  In practice, property is often sold subject to a suspensive condition, the most common being that that the sale will be null and void if (for example) a loan is not obtained from a bank within fourteen days. 

What happens however if cash or a bank approved buyer(s) appear on the horizon during the fourteen days?  A prospective cash buyer is effectively disqualified to purchase, due to the operation of the suspensive clause.  The seller runs the risk that the cash buyer may identify a suitable substitute property, whilst bond approval may not be obtained, leaving the seller high and dry in the end. 

One solution is incorporating a 72-hour clause to help mitigate the risk of losing prospective unconditional buyer(s).

The following is an example of a typical 72-hour clause:

“This offer is further subject to:

1. If the Seller receives at any time a bona fide unconditional offer to purchase, from a third party, then the Seller is entitled to give the Purchaser 72-hours (i.e. 3 full working days) written notice to comply with all the suspensive conditions contained in this offer to purchase within the aforementioned time.

2. If the Purchaser cannot comply with the abovementioned paragraph 1, then this offer to purchase is deemed cancelled.”

The 72-hour clause serves to mitigate the risk of losing prospective buyer(s).  The seller is entitled to call upon the purchaser to comply within 72-hours with all the suspensive conditions, if and when, a bona fide unconditional offer to purchase is received from a third party.  The seller maintains a bargaining position and the seller can guarantee an unconditional buyer that he will know within 72-hours if his unconditional offer is accepted or not.  The risk of losing an unconditional buyer is thus reduced.

Importantly though, the seller cannot demand of the purchaser to pay a higher purchase price, if the unconditional offer encompasses a higher purchase price. 

In summary: Property can be sold subject to suspensive conditions. Prospective buyers are effectively disqualified to purchase, whilst, the suspensive conditions are operational.  A 72-hour clause can however serve to mitigate the risk of losing prospective buyer(s).

February 6, 2012
Checkmate for Pawn Agreements: How the Recent SCA Judgment Protects Consumers from Pawnbroker Profits

Checkmate for Pawn Agreements: How the Recent SCA Judgment Protects Consumers from Pawnbroker Profits

In a landmark judgment delivered on 9 April 2025, where VDT Attorneys acted on behalf of the National Credit Regulator, the South African Supreme Court of Appeal (the “SCA”) brought clarity to the rights and obligations of consumers and pawnbrokers when dealing with pawned goods. In the case of The Loan Company (Pty) Ltd v National Credit Regulator and Another (1104/2023) [2025] ZASCA 40, the SCA confirmed a critical principle, i.e. if a pawned asset is sold for more than the outstanding loan and lawful charges, the surplus must be refunded to the consumer. Pawnbrokers cannot lawfully keep the full sale proceeds. This ruling marks a major victory for consumer protection, reinforcing South Africa’s commitment to fairness in credit transactions.

Heritage Day: Reflections from a New Breed law firm

Heritage Day: Reflections from a New Breed law firm

On 24 September, we pause to take time off to commemorate Heritage Day, a day enshrined in both our public calendar and the Constitution. A constitutional affirmation of who we are, where we come from, and where we are headed as a nation. As a new breed law firm, we reflect on how the practice of law is intertwined with the heritage of the very people it serves.

Treasury halts controversial tax proposal on preference shares

Treasury halts controversial tax proposal on preference shares

Due to the potential adverse investment impact and stakeholder concerns on the proposed amendment to the definition of “hybrid equity instrument” in the 2025 draft Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (“Bill”), the proposed amendment has been retracted. On 03 September, the National Treasury issued a media statement retracting the proposal to redefine hybrid equity instruments, which has been a relief to all stakeholders.

Sign up to our newsletter

Pin It on Pinterest