Ensuring Contractual Fairness in Consumer Contracts after Barkhuizen v Napier 2007 5 SA 323 (CC) – Part 2
| Jurisdiction | South Africa |
| Published date | 27 May 2019 |
| Pages | 50-73 |
| Date | 27 May 2019 |
| Author | P J Sutherland |
50
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
ENSURING CONTRACTUAL FAIRNESS
IN CONSUMER CONTRACTS AFTER
BARkHUIZEN V NAPIER 2007 5 SA 323 (CC)
– PART 2
PJ Sutherland
BComm LLB PhD
Professor of Mercantile Law, University of Stellenbosch*
[Part 1 of this ar ticle appeared in 2008 (3) Stellenbosch Law Review 3 90 -414]
5 The importance of sanctity or freedom of contract194
Alt houg h cou rt s have ack nowle dged that they have a dut y to i mpug n con tra c-
tual provisions that are against public policy in order to promote “simple justice
between man and man”,195 they have also remaine d cautious of public policy:
“Public policy in the interpretation of contracts has, for some reason, inspired a shower of equine
to ride, one which stampedes in opposite directions at the same time and one whose reins must be
tightly held”.196
-
dom of contract”197 and t hat:
“The power to declare contracts contrary to public policy should, however, be exercised sparingly
and only in the clearest of cases, lest uncertainty as to the validity of contracts result from an arbitrary
and indiscriminate use of the power. One must be careful not to conclude that a contract is contrary to
public policy merely because its terms (or some of them) offend one’s individual sense of propriety
and fairness”.198
* I gratef ully acknowledge t he valuable advice of An dre van der Walt, Loure ns du Plessis, Dura nd Cupido
and the anony mous reviewers.
194 T he judges in this mat ter seem to use the ter ms sanctity of cont ract and freedom of co ntract intercha nge-
ably. It is doubtful whet her this is corr ect. But nothing mor e will be made of it in th is contribution.
195 Jajbhay v Cas sim 1939 AD 537 544.
196 See Interlan d Durban (Pty) Ltd v Walters NO 1993 1 SA 223 (A) 224-225 and the analysis of the criticis m
of Sasfin ( Pty) Ltd v Beukes 1989 1 SA 1 (A).
197 Sasfi n (Pty) Ltd v Beukes 1989 1 SA 1 (A) 9.
198 8-9. See also Afrox Healthcare Bpk v Stry dom 2002 6 SA 21 (SCA) para 8; Barnard v Barnard 2000 3
SA 741 (C) para 40; Botha (now Griessel) v Finanscredit (Pty) Ltd 1989 3 SA 773 (A) 782-783; Bris ley
v Drotsk y 2002 4 SA 1 (SCA) par a 31; Brummer v Gor fil Brothers I nvestments ( Pty) Ltd 1999 2 SA 389
(SCA) 403; Citibank NA South Afric an Branch v Pau l 2003 4 SA 180 (T ) 195; De Beer v Ke yser 2002 1
Insurance Ltd Diners Club SA (Pty) Ltd v Singh 2004 3 SA 630 (D) 657-658; Eerste
Nasionale Bank van Suid elike Afrika Bpk v Saayman 1997 4 SA 302 (SCA) 324; First National Bank of SA
Ltd v Bophuthatsw ana Consumer Affairs Co uncil 1995 2 SA 853 (BG) 870-871; Joosub Investments (Pty)
Ltd v Ma ritime & General Ins urance Co Ltd 1990 3 SA 373 (C) 385-386; M ufamadi v Dorbyl Finan ce
(Pty) Ltd 1996 1 SA 799 (A) 803-804; Price Waterhou se Coopers Inc v National Pota to Co-operativ e Ltd
2004 6 SA 66 (SCA) para 23; Socie ty of Lloyd’s v Romakin 2006 4 SA 23 (C) par as 99, 109; Stan dard Bank
of SA Ltd v Esso p 1997 4 SA 569 (D) 575-576; Traco Marketing (Pt y) Ltd v Commissione r South African
Revenue Ser vices: In re Commissioner South Afr ican Revenue Serv ices v Traco Marketing (Pty) Ltd 1998
Vente r v Credit Guarante e Insurance Corpor ation of Africa Ltd 1996 3 SA 966 (A)
976-977; Warrenton Muni sipaliteit v Coetze e 1998 3 SA 1103 (NC) 1112.
(2009) 20 Stell LR 50
© Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
In the Supreme Court of App eal cou nsel for the insured relied on the
constitutional values of “dignity, equ ality and the a dvancements of human
rights and freedoms” as descr ibed in section 1 of the Constit ution, to have
the ti me limitation st ruck down for being inconsistent with public policy.199
review of contractu al provisions. He stated that these values do not provide a
“general all-embracing touch stone for invalidat ing a contract”.200 He stressed
the imp ortance of f reedom of contract as a const itutional counter-value and
observed that this principle was itself rooted in freedom and dignity.201 Judges
have to take care not to impose their conceptions of fairness and justice on
arrangements that were apparently concluded voluntarily. Constitut ional
values had to be employed only to st rike down the “unaccept able excesses of
freedom of contract ”.202
Cameron JA mentioned that it is “easy to see how the Constitution’s founda-
tional values of non-racialism and non-sexism could lead to the invalidation of
a contractual t erm”.203 He then conti nued that a fa r more complicated balanc-
ing act was necessar y for determi ning whether a clause could be impugned
on t he basis of dignity, equa lity and the advancement of human rights and
-
ciple of fre edom of contract.204 Cameron JA’s argu ment seems to have been
the dual role of also forming the found ation for freedom of contr act. But his
argument paints the pictu re with rather broad strokes. T he judge followed a
classic liberal inte rpretation of the concepts f reedom and dignity. It is doubt-
ful whether it is h istorically, politically and therefore legally a cceptable to
-
cle to facilitate transformation” in an unequal societ y such as South Africa.2 05
Dignity also should be a “const raint-based” rather than an “empowerment-
based” liberal concept in this so ciety that still struggles to deal with the
legacies of apartheid.206 Cameron JA’s narrow relianc e on the foundational
principles of the Constit ution in order to give content to public policy fur ther
skews public policy in favour of sanct ity of contract.207 A more sophisticated
It is doubted whether the special role which Came ron JA ascrib ed to freedom
199 Napier v Bar khuizen 2006 4 SA 1 (SCA) pa ra 11. See also Brisley v Drot sky 2002 4 SA 1 (SCA) para 94 ,
Lubbe 2004 SALJ 414-415; Price Waterhouse Coopers Inc v Nation al Potato Co-operat ive Ltd 2004 6 SA
66 (SCA) para 44.
200 Napier v Barkh uizen 2006 4 SA 1 (SCA) para 11.
201 Paras 11-14. See also Bhana 200 7 SALJ 271-272; Naude & Lubbe 2005 SALJ 443.
202 Napier v Barkhui zen 2006 4 SA 1 (SCA) para 13. See also para 7 and the rejection of the st riking down of
contract ual provisions on imp recise notions such a s good faith.
203 Para 14. See gen erally text nex t to n 240 below. See a lso Sachs J in B arkhuizen v Na pier 2007 5 SA 323
(CC) para 182 and his ana lysis of profiling an d stereotypin g, discussed in th e text next to n 268 below.
204 Napier v Barkh uizen 2006 4 SA 1 (SCA) paras 11-16.
205 Bhana 2007 SALJ 274.
206 273-275 (it is doubted whether Bhana is corre ct in concluding that th is is more cons ervative than the
pre-Cons titutional approa ch to contracts again st public policy). See furthe r Bhana & Pieterse “Towards a
Reconciliat ion of Contract Law and Constit utional Values: Brisley and Afrox Revisite d” 2005 SALJ 865
879-881; Lubbe 2004 SALJ 420- 422; Naude & Lubbe 2005 SALJ 452.
207 See text next to n 102 above.
v
© Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd
To continue reading
Request your trial