The Development of a Basic Approach for the Constitutionalisation of our Common Law of Contract

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Pages: 3-28
• Author: Deeksha Bhana
• Published date: 16 August 2019
• Date: 16 August 2019

3

THE DEVELOPMENT OF A BASIC APPROACH

FOR THE CONSTITUTIONALISATION OF OUR

COMMON LAW OF CONTRACT*

Deeksha Bhana

BCom LLB LLM PhD

Associate Professor of Law, University of the Witwatersrand

1 Introduction

Much has been writt en about the theoretical foundat ions for the

constitutionalisat ion of our common law of contract.1 Academics and judges

alike have rightly emphasised the nee d to transition from t he classical liberal

understandi ng of contracts and cont ract law, to a substantively progressive

and transformat ive conception, which fosters the foundat ional constitutional

values of freedom, dignit y and equality (ie the found ational constitutional

triad)2 as well as any ap plicable rights (as enumerated in the Cons titution of

the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (“Constitut ion”))3 operating in the post-

aparth eid era.4 Importa ntly, this process contemplates the constitutionalisat ion

* This art icle forms par t of Chapter Four (“D evelopment of a Const itutional ised Approach t o Contract ual

Autonomy and Metho dology”) of my PhD “Co nstitutiona lising Contr act Law: Ideology, Judicia l Method and

Contract ual Autonomy” at t he School of Law, University of t he Witwatersr and Than k you to Marius P ieterse

for his super vision and guida nce Thank you als o to the anonymous r eferees for their helpf ul comments

1 See for instan ce AJ Barna rd-Naude “Oh W hat a Tangled Web We Weave: Hegemony, Freedom of

Contract, G ood Faith and Transforma tion – Towards a Politics of Friendship i n the Politics of Contrac t”

(2008) 1 Constitutional Court Review 155 155-208; D Bhana & M Piet erse “Towards a Reconciliation

of Contract Law a nd Constit utional Values: Brisley a nd Afrox Revisite d” (2005) 122 SALJ 865 865-

895; L Hawthorne “ Distribution of Wealth, t he Dependency The ory and the Law of Contr act” (2006) 69

THRHR 48 48-63; L Hawtho rne “Justice Albie Sach s’ Contribution to the L aw of Contract: Recogn ition

of Relational Cont ract Theory” (2010) 25 SA Public Law 80 8 0-93; J Lewis “Fairness in S outh African

Contract Law ” (2003) 120 SALJ 330 330-351; G Lubbe “Taking Fundame ntal Rights Serio usly: The Bill

of Rights and its I mplications for the Developme nt of Contract Law” (2004) 121 SALJ 395 395-423; PJ

Sutherland “E nsuring C ontract ual Fairnes s in Consume r Contract s after Bark huizen v Napier 2007 5

SA 323 (CC) – Part 1” (2008) 19 Stell LR 390 390- 414; PJ Sutherland “En suring Contra ctual Fairness i n

Consumer Co ntracts aft er Barkhuize n v Napier 2007 5 SA 323 (CC) – Part 2 ” (2009) 20 Stell LR 50 50-73;

S Woolman “The Am azing Vanishing Bil l of Rights” (2007) 124 SALJ 762 76 2-794

2 Briefly st ated, the foundation al constitutional t riad comprises the fou ndational constit utional values of

freedom, d ignity and equ ality, which serve t o articulat e the concept of cont ractual aut onomy operatin g in

the post-apa rtheid constitut ional context Importa ntly, the triad contempla tes a fluid intra-acti on of the

different d imensions of each of the fou ndational value s as well as a fluid inte r-action bet ween the values

For more inform ation on the opera tion of the triad , see part 3 below Se e also D Bhana Constitutionalising

Contract La w: Ideology, Judic ial Method and Co ntractual A utonomy (2013) unpublishe d PhD thesis,

University of the W itwatersrand 9 0-115 (available at htt p://wiredspace wits ac za/ha ndle/10539/12816)

3 Ss 9-35 of the Constitut ion

4 Barnard-N aude (2008) Constitutional Court Review 155-208; Bhana & Pieters e (2005) SALJ 865-895;

Hawthorn e (2006) THRHR 48-63; Haw thorne (2010) SA Public Law 80 -93; Lewis (2003) SALJ 330 -

351; Lubbe (2004) SALJ 395-423; Sutherla nd (2008) Stell LR 390-414; Sutherland (20 09) Stell LR 50-73;

Woolman (2007) SALJ 762-794; see also Br isley v Drots ky 2002 4 SA 1 (SCA) paras 8 8-95; Afrox

Healthcare Bpk v S trydom 2002 6 SA 21 (SCA) paras 8, 14-24, 32; Johann esburg Country Clu b v Stott

2004 5 SA 511 (SCA) para 12; South African For estry Co Ltd v York Timbe rs 2005 3 SA 323 (SCA) paras

(2015) 26 Stell LR 3

© Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd

of not only the substance of our common law of contr act, but also of its form

and attending mecha nics of its operation.5

That said, our contr act law continues to operat e very much in the same

manner as it did in t he pre-constit utional era. At best, judges have effected

largely cosmetic changes via the est ablished common law doctr ine of legality

on the periphery of cont ract law.6 Arguably, this is the result of judges not

having concrete guideli nes in terms of how exactly to move forward with the

constitutionalisat ion process. Accordingly, the aim of this ar ticle is to set out

a “basic approach” for the constitutiona lisation of our contract law (including

the att ending common-law metho dology), rst, in terms of the foundational

constitutional t riad and secondly, in term s of the enumerated substa ntive

constitutional r ights that may be implicated.

Below, I briey highlight the main points of the horizontal application of

the Bill of Rights in accorda nce with sections 39 and 8 of the Constitution and

tease out the implications the reof for our common law of contract.7 In doing

so, I explain how such mandate must apply in relation to t he broader concept

of contractual autonomy; the p remise being that cont ractual autonomy

comprises the “centra l axis” of our common law of contract.8 At th is point, I

reiterate that the subst ance of contractu al autonomy (and therefore, contract

law) needs to be re-legitimated with in the foundational cons titutional tr iad’s

more uid conception of autonomy, as e mbodied by t he constitutional self,

both generally a nd in relation to the specic case before the court.9 Finally, I

re-emphasise the need t o adjust the methodology employed by contract law

in a manner that would bet ter suit such a constit utional determ ination of

contractu al autonomy.10

I then consider the application of this appro ach more carefully in relat ion

to the narrower situat ion where one or more distinct subst antive rights also

27, 30-31; Napier v Barkhuizen 20 06 4 SA 1 (SCA) paras 6-14; Bredenkamp v Stand ard Bank of South

Africa Ltd 2010 4 SA 468 (SCA) paras 27-28, 36- 40, 50-54; Maphango v Ae ngus Lifestyl e Properties ( Pty)

Ltd 2011 5 SA 19 (SCA) paras 23-25; Barkhuizen v Napie r 2007 5 SA 323 (CC) paras 51-52, 56-58, 70-73,

104, 124; Everfresh Ma rket Virginia (Pt y) Ltd v Shoprite Che ckers (Pty) Ltd 2012 1 SA 256 (CC) para 71;

Botha v Rich NO 2014 4 SA 124 (CC) paras 28, 4 6-51; Cool Ideas 1186 CC v Hubbard 2014 4 SA 474 (CC)

para s 53-62; 135-147

5 D Bhana “The Role of Jud icial Method in the Reli nquishing of Constit utional Rights th rough Contract ”

(2008) 24 SAJHR 300 308-311 See f urther A Cock rell “Substanc e and Form in the South A frican Law of

Contract ” (1992) 109 SALJ 40 40-44; L Hawthor ne “Legal Tradit ion and the Transform ation of Orthod ox

Contract T heory: The Movement f rom Formalism to Real ism” (2006) 12 Fundamina 71 71-86

6 See for instan ce the generally unsat isfactory outcomes i n Brisley v Drotsky 20 02 4 SA 1 (SCA); Afrox

Healthcare Bpk v S trydom 200 2 6 SA 21 (SCA); Barkhuizen v Napier 20 07 5 SA 323 (CC); cf Botha v Rich

NO 2014 4 SA 124 (CC)

7 In this ar ticle, I highlight the ma in points discuss ed in D Bhana “The Hori zontal Application of th e Bill

of Rights: A Reconc iliation of Section s 8 and 39 of the Constitu tion” (2013) 29 SAJHR 351 351-375 with a

view to teasin g out its precise implic ations for the substa nce, form and method ology currently em ployed

by our common law of c ontract

8 Bhana Const itutionalising Contract Law 44 47-65; D Bhana “Cont ractual Au tonomy Unpacked:

The Inter nal and Exter nal Dimen sions of Contra ctual Autono my Operati ng in the Post-Apar theid

Constitut ional Context ” (2015) 31 SAJHR (forthcoming) Again , I summar ise here the ma in points

discussed i n these two pieces with a v iew to extracting t he relevant connect ions between the subst ance,

form and metho dology curr ently employed by our co mmon law of contra ct This i s necessar y for purposes

of developing a “basic a pproach” for the const itutionalisat ion of the common law of cont ract

9 See part 3 below See als o Bhana Constitutionalising Contract Law 90-92

10 Bhana (2008) SAJHR 308-311; see further D Bhana “ The Role of Judicial Me thod in Cont ract Law

Revisited” (2015) 132 SALJ 122 122-149

4 STELL LR 2015 1

© Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd