Tjaart Jurgens Maré Doctor Legum Universiteit van die Vrystaat

208
om die sogenaamde “restraint in trade”-klousules tersyde te stel. Die aangaan van
so ʼn klousule is regstegnies korrek, maar die vraag is of die klousule nie indruis teen
die openbare belang (public interest) nie. Die Appèlhof (tans die Hoogste Hof van
Appèl) het in bogemelde saak beslis dat onredelike beperkingsklousules op ʼn party
se vryheid om aan die ekonomie deel te neem, in sommige gevalle wel teen die
openbare belang kan wees en as onafdwingbare klousule beskou moet word.
Openbare beleid word deur die Grondwet omvat, asook die fundamentele waardes
wat by openbare beleid tuishoort. In die Brisley-saak verwys appèlregter Cameron
soos volg na die aspek:
“It is not difficult to envisage situations in which contracts that offend these
fundamentals of our new social compact will be struck down as offensive to
public policy. They will be struck down because the constitution requires it, and
the values it enshrines will guide the courts in doing so. The decisions of this
Court that proclaim that the limits of contractual sanctity lies at the borders of
public will therefore receive enhanced force and clarity in the light of the
Constitution and the values embodied in the Bill of Rights.” 437
Dit is egter duidelik dat die howe deeglik daarvan bewus is dat die nodige
omsigtigheid en versigtigheid aan die dag gelê moet word wanneer ʼn klousule in die
kontrak teen die openbare beleid verklaar word. ʼn Goeie riglyn vir die howe
rakende versigtigheid word uitgespel deur appèlregter Smallberger in die saak van
Sasfin (Pty) Limited v Beukes. 438
2.1.1 DIE BEPERKING VAN KONTRAKTEERVRYHEID
Kontrakteervryheid kan wel beperk word, indien dit indruis teen openbare
beleid, welke begrip se inhoud ook bepaal word deur grondwetlike waardes.
Die kriterium om vas te stel of ʼn kontrakgeding teen die openbare beleid is, is
“wesentlike onteenseglike nadeel vir die openbare belang.”
Sekere akademici soos Hawthorne439 en Tladi440 val in twee opsigte
kontrakteervryheid aan.
437 Brisley v Drotsky 2002(4) SA 1 (A) paragraaf 92.
438 1989(1) SA 1 (A) Appèlregter Smallberger beslis soos volg : “No court should therefore shrink from the duty of declaring a contract contrary to public
policy when the occasion so demands. 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 validity of contracts result from an arbitrary and indiscriminate use of power. One must be careful not to include 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. In the words of
Lord Atkin in Fender v St John-Mildmay 1938 AC 1 (HL) at 12… ‘The doctrine should only be invoked in clear cases in which the harm to the public is
substantially inevitable, and does not depend upon the idiosyncratic inferences of a few justicial minds…’ In grapping with this often difficult problem it must
be borne in mind that public generally favours the utmost freedom of contract, and requires that commercial transactions should not be unduly trammelled
by restrictions of that freedom.” (SASFIN 9B-E).
439 Hawthorne, 1995:157.
440 Tladi, 2002:306.