Condition precedent clauses are a frequent feature in certain commercial agreements. They set out typically the events that must take place before the parties are obligated to perform. These clauses are commonly accepted as being fundamental to the enforceability of any such agreement but the Supreme Court of Appeal’s (“SCA”) findings In Noel Patrick McGrane v Cape Royale The Residence[1] reveal important factors that ought be examined in the consideration of their enforceability.

Cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Ripple act as exchange networks via which persons can affect the transfer of funds or wealth without need for oversight by a central regulatory authority, such as a bank, instead making use of peer-to-peer technology.

The arbitration clause in contracts have been a popular topic of debate and have stirred the litigation pot for some time now. An arbitration clause requires parties to a contract to resolve their disputes through an arbitration process as opposed to in-court litigation.

During July 2021, and seemingly initiated by the arrest of the former President, Jacob Zuma, South Africa experienced an elevated degree of civil unrest throughout many parts of Gauteng and Kwa-Zulu Natal. Whilst the full economic impact of these events is presently unclear, there is little doubt that business operations across the country have suffered significant losses, with one inauspicious consequence of many companies being unable to fulfill their contractual obligations. In this context, it is useful to consider the concept of force majeure and the contractual application of these clauses.

A liquidated damages clause describes the quantum of damages due and payable upon breach of a commercial agreement. This can be a devilish feature of non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements (“NDA(s)”) which typically set out the terms upon which a “receiving party” will be permitted to use or share confidential information provided by a “disclosing party”.

The Constitutional Court in Beadica 231 CC and Others v Trustees for the time being of the Oregon Trust and Others, recently had occasion to consider whether a renewal clause in a lease agreement was against public policy because of the fact that enforcement of a specific term would result in substantive inequality, in terms of section 9(2) of the Constitution.