The role of the principles of good faith and ubuntu in the law of contract

Traditionally, the roles of fairness, reasonableness and fantastic faith in the law of agreement have been the subject of debate 1 of the most controversial problems is regardless of whether a court docket can refuse to implement a valid contract if it considers that the enforcement would be unfair, unreasonable, or unduly harsh. In light of this, our courts have made concepts governing the enforcement of contracts, by means of concepts these kinds of as great faith and ubuntu.

In the distinguishable circumstance of S v Makwanyane and A different 1995 (3) SA 391 (CC) 484, the Constitutional Court docket explains ubuntu as humaneness, personhood and morality. Metaphorically, it expresses by itself in umuntu ngumuntu ngabantu, describing the importance of team solidarity on survival issues so central to the survival of communities. The court docket stresses that the spirit of ubuntu “…emphasises respect for human dignity, marking a shift from confrontation to conciliation…”

Given that the arrival of the constitutional dispensation, the theory of excellent faith now derives its force from the Structure and the values enshrined inside it. These values involve human dignity, the accomplishment of equality and the development of human rights and freedoms, and the rule of legislation. Incorporated into our regulation as a constitutional benefit is the theory of ubuntu ubuntu in switch, informs the basic principle of general public coverage.

HM Du Plessis, a senior lecturer in the University of South Africa[1], would make a key difference involving the notion of excellent faith and ubuntu and supplies that although both equally notions encourage contractual justice between the events, ubuntu consists of an added obligation to encourage the parties’ and community’s social and financial very well-becoming. As a result, unlike very good faith, ubuntu is anxious with advertising and marketing substantive equality in personal associations

It is from this track record, that we established out a timeline beneath on how the courts have used the rules of good faith and ubuntu, which has motivated the interpretation of contracts more than time.

Good religion and ubuntu, from a situation legislation evaluation:

1. Sasfin (Pty) Ltd v Beukes [1989] (1) SA 1 (A) 7
   1. The court docket held that the pursuits of the group or the community are of paramount significance in relation to the idea of community plan. In addition, that agreements which are plainly inimical to the interest of the group, whether or not they are contrary to regulation or morality, or operate counter to social or financial expedience, will appropriately, on the grounds of general public coverage, not be enforced.
   2. However, the court cautions that the energy to declare contracts opposite to general public policy ought to be exercised sparingly and only in the clearest of scenarios. Also, that 1 have to be mindful not to conclude that a agreement is contrary to general public coverage just mainly because its terms (or some of them) offend one’s individual feeling of propriety and fairness.
2. Brisley v Drotsky 2002 (12) BCLR 1229 (SCA)
   1. This scenario laid the basis in respect of the method that governs the principle of great faith in the regulation of agreement.In this case, the court held that the principle of superior faith informs the substantive legislation of contract by executing a innovative, managing, and legitimating functionality.
   2. The Supreme Court docket of Attraction emphasizes, having said that, that excellent religion does not type an impartial or a freestanding foundation on which a court docket might refuse to enforce a contractual provision, and that accepting it as a self-standing foundation would introduce an unacceptable state of uncertainty into the legislation of deal.
3. Afrox Healthcare v Strydom [2002] 4 All SA 125 (SCA)
   1. The Supreme Court of Appeal held that courts do not decide the enforceability of contractual provisions based mostly on abstract concepts these types of as very good religion, reasonableness, and fairness, but only through implementing founded lawful guidelines. The court additional stated that despite the fact that these rules form the basis of our legal regulations, they are not themselves legal regulations.
4. Barkhuizen v Napier 2007 (7) BCLR 691 (CC)
   1. This circumstance performed a sizeable component in figuring out the function of good religion and ubuntu in the law of agreement in South Africa.
   2. In this situation, the Constitutional Courtroom formulated a two-stage enquiry when pinpointing fairness:
      1. The first step entails taking into consideration the query whether or not the clause itself is unreasonable and contrary to community coverage and if the clause is identified to be sensible, the court docket will then glance into the next inquiry.
      2. In phrases of the next enquiry, the court docket will have to ascertain whether the clause need to be enforced thinking of the certain instances of that certain scenario.
5. Bredenkamp v Regular Financial institution of SA [2010] 4 All SA 113 (SCA)
   1. The Supreme Courtroom of Attractiveness concluded that fairness was not a freestanding requirement of a contractual ideal and even further crystalized the two-phase inquiry proven in the Barkhuizen circumstance.
6. Beadica 231 CC v Trustees for the Time Getting of the Oregon Have confidence in 2020 (9) BCLR 1098 (CC)
   1. The the vast majority in the Constitutional Court emphasized that elements these kinds of as ubuntu, good religion, fairness and public policy enjoy an essential part in the software and interpretation of contract law. Most importantly these factors are required to create substantive fairness in contracts. The software of these concepts is facilitated by way of the policies of contract law and it is only wherever it is so unfair, unreasonable or unjust that it can be said that it is contrary to public policy.

Conclusion

The over circumstance law emphasizes the placement that rules this kind of as good faith, fairness, reasonableness and ubuntu do not supply a free-standing foundation upon which a courtroom might interfere in contractual interactions but relatively that the software of these concepts is facilitated as a result of the rules of deal legislation and it is only the place it is so unfair, unreasonable or unjust that it can be reported that a court docket may interfere with an settlement by looking at concepts these as superior faith and ubuntu.