Which of the following statements about attornment is INCORRECT?

This question asks to identify the incorrect option regarding the requirements of attornment. Attornment is a method of transferring ownership of a movable thing where the thing is already in the possession of a third party. Let's analyze each option: a) A tripartite agreement must exist between all three parties concerned. This statement is correct*. For attornment to be valid, there must be an agreement between the transferor (old owner), the transferee (new owner), and the third party (who holds the thing). The third party agrees to hold the thing for the new owner. b) The third party (holder) must be in control of the thing when the tripartite agreement is concluded. This statement is correct*. The essence of attornment is that the third party already has physical control of the movable property, and this control is then transferred constructively to the new owner through the agreement. c) The third party (holder) can consent in advance to a future transfer of ownership. This statement is incorrect. For attornment to be effective, the third party's consent must be given at the time of the transfer or, at the very least, be effective at that specific moment, acknowledging that they now hold the thing for the new* owner. Consent given generally in advance for any future, unspecified transfer is usually not sufficient because it lacks the specific intention to hold for a particular new owner. d) A method of transfer of ownership similar to attornment was recognised in Caledon en SWD Eksekuteurskamer Bpk v Wentzel (1972 1 SA 270 (A)). This statement is correct*. This is a well-known South African case that affirmed the principles and requirements of attornment, particularly emphasizing the need for the third party's consent. Therefore, the incorrect statement is c). The correct option is c). c) The third party (holder) can consent in advance to a future transfer of ownership. 3 done, 2 left today. You're making progress.