Skip to main content

Signing a contract without reading and or understanding it – what are the implications?

This article deals with the written forms of contract, more specifically when one party tries to resile from (or get out of) a contract because he/she/it did not understand the contract’s terms or did not know that he/she/it was signing an actual contract. 
In South African law the principle Caveat Subscriptor – signor beware – applies.  This means that a party who signs a contract consents to be bound by its terms and conditions, irrespective if such party did not read the contract or understand its terms.   
The fact that you did not read the contract, did not understand its terms, or did not know what you were signing, is not an excuse which will help you escape the legal consequences of said contract. 
I refer to the case of Smit v Hughes where it was explained that: 
“If, whatever a man’s real intention may be, he so conducts himself that a reasonable man would believe that he was assenting to the terms proposed by the other party and that other party upon the belief enters into the contract with him, the man thus conducting himself would be equally bound as if he had intended to agree to the other party’s terms.”
There are of course defences which can be raised against the Caveat Subscriptor-rule.  These include the defences of Misrepresentation, Fraud, Duress, Undue Influence, Illegality and Mistake. The most common defence to the Caveat Subscriptor-rule is probably: Misrepresentation.  This is where one party submits that he/she/it acted on facts which were misrepresented by the other contracting party which resulted in the former party entering into the contract.  However, if negligence is established on the side of the party who wants to resile, such party will not be able to use a defence to the Caveat Subscriptor-rule. What I mean here is that there is still a responsibility on you to ensure that you read and understand what you are signing before you sign anything and that you should not just rely on what you are told you are signing by the other party.
Therefore – if you want to enter into a contract with anybody, make sure that you read the contract carefully and that you understand all of its terms.  Alternatively, it is best to seek the advice of an attorney so he/she can explain the terms of the contract to you.  In weighing up the expenses of this consultation, compared to the legal costs of going to court you will incur as a result of not understanding the terms of the contract, the consultation’s cost will be insignificant. 
Remember, knowledge is power and ignorance is not bliss.
Written by Talita Erasmus – a practising attorney at Alan José Incorporated.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Partners in a permanent life partnership could now enjoy the same benefits as spouses when it comes to intestate succession.

  The High Court in Cape Town recently decided a matter where a surviving partner, in a permanent life partnership, sought to declare certain sections of the Intestate Succession Act 18 of 1987 and Maintenance of Surviving Spouses Act 27 1990 unconstitutional.   In Bwanya v Master of the High Court and others 2020 (12) BCLR 1446 (WCC) the Applicant alleged that she and the deceased had been partners in a permanent opposite-sex life partnership, with the same or similar characteristics as a marriage, in which they had undertaken reciprocal duties of support and had committed themselves to marrying each other.  The deceased passed without leaving a valid will. The Applicant accordingly claimed against the estate and sought to be recognized as an heir in terms of the Intestate Succession Act. She further also sought maintenance from the estate in terms of the Maintenance of Surviving Spouses Act.   The executor rejected the Applicants claims on the basis that the aforementioned acts does
Post a Comment
Read more

THE EFFECT OF YOUR MARITAL REGIME ON TRANSACTIONS WITH THIRD PARTIES

Court cases discussed in this article: -        Broodie N.O. v Maposa and Others 2018 (3) SA 129 (WCC) [The court of first instance] & -        Marais N.O. and Another v Maposa and Others (642/2018) [2020] zasca 23 (25 March 2020)   [The court of Appeal] When entering into any form of a financial transaction with someone who is married in community of property, that person’s spouse’s consent may also be required for the business contract to be valid, binding and enforceable.  But what does this mean and is there a legal duty to investigate as to what the marital status of the other person is?    These questions were asked and answered in the above-mentioned two court cases. In this article I will explain what the respective Judges decided on these issues. Broodie N.O. v Maposa and Others The facts: Mrs Broodie married Mr Broodie in 1967 in community of property.  The marriage was a civil one in terms of the then Black Administration Act, 38 of 192
Post a Comment
Read more

Maintenance: Who is legally liable to maintain who?

According to South Africa law, particularly the common law, both parents (whether in a relationship or not) are obligated to financially support their children.   While this article will only discuss the maintenance of children, it is also important to note that other parties may be legally liable to pay maintenance. In some instances, grandparents are legally liable to maintain their grandchildren if their children, that is to say the grandchildren’s parents, are unable to maintain the grandchildren. Again, this is only if the grandparents are financially able to maintain their grandchildren.   Husbands and wives are also legally liable to maintain each other whilst they are married and, if the divorce court makes an order for spousal maintenance then there will also be a legal obligation to maintain an ex-spouse after the divorce.   Lastly, children may be liable to maintain their parents. This is only if the parents can prove that they are in need of maintenance and that the child o
Post a Comment
Read more