The New Communal Jetty Berth Agreement - Read This First

Below is the email I sent to Boet Grobler, GM of the HOA, on 21 May 2025. The facts don't need my commentary. They speak for themselves.     (Bold added here for emphasis)

Dear Boet,

I have a Thesen Islands Jetty Berth Agreement signed by me and the Thesen Islands Home Owners Association (the Parties), on 14 February 2004, for a jetty berth designated as 1-1.  You have the original agreement in your office.

The period began on the Occupation Date, 14 February 2004 and terminates on 31 December 2101.

I quote from this Agreement: No variation of the Agreement shall affect the terms thereof unless such variation shall be reduced to writing under the hands of the Parties.

Having taken legal advice, I will not be signing the new Agreement. It would leave me in a materially worse position by introducing ongoing monthly levies, reserve fund contributions, additional administrative costs, and more onerous transfer provisions, all of which materially erode my existing rights.

Therefore the existing Agreement will continue to regulate the relationship between the Parties.

The new Agreement was submitted without notice, explanation, or any account of the changes. More fundamentally, the HOA has failed to acknowledge the existence of a binding Agreement between us, one that can only be varied with the consent of both Parties. This falls short of the HOA's constitutional obligation to protect members' interests. I request that you withdraw it.

I intend to share this email on my blog so that fellow berth holders can consider the implications and make an informed decision before signing, which the HOA has failed to provide.

Sincerely,

Ken Rutherford

Yesterday, I received a reply from the HOA. While it acknowledges the existence of my 2004 Agreement, it sidesteps the central issue: that the Agreement is a binding contract that cannot be varied without the consent of both parties. Instead, it focuses on justifying the need for a new agreement — justification that does not bear scrutiny. Notably, the HOA's rebuttal of my point about their constitutional obligation conveniently misreads my concern — I was referring to the manner in which the new agreement was presented, not to the jetty replacement programme itself, as you can plainly read above.
If you would like to read the HOA's position for yourself, simply tell them you won't be signing the agreement as you are happy with your current agreement. You will likely get the same answer I got.