|
''Barkhuizen v Napier''〔2007 (5) SA 323 (CC).〕 is an important case in South African contract law, decided by the Constitutional Court on 4 April 2007, having been heard on 4 May 2006. The judges were Langa CJ, Moseneke DCJ, Madala J, Mokgoro J, Ngcobo J, Nkabinde J, O'Regan J, Sachs J, Skweyiya J, Van Der Westhuizen J and Yacoob J. == Facts == When the applicant (the insured) instituted action in a High Court against the respondent (the insurer) on a short-term insurance contract, the insurer raised a special plea that it had been released from liability under the contract, since the applicant had failed to institute the action within the time period specified in the contract, namely ninety days from the date of repudiation of the claim. The applicant replicated that the time-limitation clause was unconstitutional and unenforceable because it violated his right under the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa to have the matter determined by a court.〔s 34.〕 The High Court upheld the applicant's contention, made an order declaring the time-limitation clause to be inconsistent with the Constitution and dismissed the special plea. On appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA), it was found that section 34 of the Constitution did not prevent time-bar provisions in contracts that were entered into freely and voluntarily, but that it could not be determined on the evidence whether the clause under consideration had been entered into freely and voluntarily. The SCA accordingly upheld the appeal (and the special plea). The applicant then approached the Constitutional Court (CC) for leave to appeal against the decision of the SCA. Before the CC, the respondent contended ''inter alia'' that the provisions of section 34 had no application to constitutional challenges to contractual terms. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Barkhuizen v Napier」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|