R.E. JUDGMENTS

AN ESCAPE FROM CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS BECAUSE THEY ARE UNFAIR? – BEADICA 231 CC AND OTHERS V TRUSTEES FOR THE TIME BEING OF THE OREGON TRUST AND OTHERS (CCT109 /19) [2020] ZACC 13 (17 JUNE) – 10 July 2020

In recent times, there has been increasing debate and court judgment dealing with the question whether an agreement between two reasonable business persons is at risk of being invalidated by invoking unreasonableness, unfairness and public policy considerations, viewed against the background of legal certainty and pacta sunt servanda (the principle that contracts freely entered into between parties must be honoured and, if necessary, enforced by the courts)…

SOMETIMES PRUDENT TO AWAKEN SLEEPING DOGS – 17 July 2020

SONTSELE V 140 MAIN STREET PROPERTIES CC AND ANOTHER (328/2019) [2020] ZASCA 85 (6 JULY 2020) A 10 year lease agreement included an option to renew, subject to agreement regarding adjusted rental. At the end of the initial lease period and after indicating that it wanted to exercise the option to renew the lease, the tenant stayed on in the premises for a further 12 months, increasing the rental payment by its own doing in accordance with what it estimated was a market-related adjustment…