The basis of any contract is the agreement of two or more parties. In traditional Swedish and English contract law theory, a contract is formed through the reciprocal exchange of an offer and a corresponding acceptance. Together, these declarations of will represent the common intent of the parties, which binds them to their respective contractual obligations and determines the contents of the contract. In the contemporary commercial sector, the use of standard forms (i.e., sets of terms that have not been individually negotiated) has become more prevalent. This has led to the rise of a particular legal issue, called the “battle of forms”: a situation where both parties refer to their own, conflicting, standard forms during the formation of contract, where after they proceed in fulfilling their contractual obligations. Consequently, the exchanged declarations of will lack conformity in these cases, and there is no discernible common will of the parties. In order to conclude that a contract has been formed, and to decide its contents, this conflict needs to be resolved. The traditional approach to resolving the issue of battle of forms in English law is to regard the last referenced standard terms in the contractual negotiations as an offer (or counter-offer), and the other party’s conduct as an acceptance. This approach largely corresponds with how the issue likely would be resolved according to traditional Swedish contract law principles. However, in the legal scientific environments of both Sweden and England, ideas and concepts of a modern contract law has developed. Included therein is the idea of taking a more flexible stance with regard to the formation of contract. When viewing the contractual relationship holistically, and partly liberated from the offer-acceptance approach, the battle of forms can be resolved by letting the court construe the different sets of terms together, and re-place conflicting terms with suitable substitutes by implication. These modern concepts have partly manifested in recent English precedence regarding the battle of forms. Considering that the patterns of development with respect to the modern law of contract are similar in Swedish and English law, there is reason to believe that a similar “new” approach to the battle of forms might be adopted by Swedish courts as well.

The legal historical development of fairness in the South African common law of contract is investigated in the context of the political, social and economic developments of the last four centuries. It emerges that the common law of contract is still dominated by the ideologies of individualism and economic liberalism which were imported from English law during the nineteenth century. Together with the theories of legal positivism and formalism which are closely related to parliamentary sovereignty and the classical rule of law, these ideals were transposed into the common law of contract through the classical model of contract law which emphasises freedom and sanctity of contract and promotes legal certainty. This approach resulted in the negation of the court’s equitable discretion and the limitation of good faith which sustain the social and economic inequalities that were created under colonialism and exacerbated under apartheid rule. In stark contrast, the modern human rights culture grounded in human dignity and aimed at the promotion of substantive equality led to the introduction of modern contract theory in other parts of the world. The introduction of the Constitution as grounded in human dignity and aimed at the achievement of substantive equality has resulted in a sophisticated jurisprudence on human dignity that reflects a harmonisation between its Western conception as based on Kantian dignity and ubuntu which provides an African understanding thereof. In this respect, ubuntu plays an important role in infusing the common law of contract with African values and in promoting substantive equality between contracting parties in line with modern contract theory. It is submitted that this approach to human dignity should result in the development of good faith into a substantive rule of the common law of contract which can be used to set aside an unfair contract term or the unfair enforcement thereof. / Private Law / LL. D.

The legal historical development of fairness in the South African common law of contract is investigated in the context of the political, social and economic developments of the last four centuries. It emerges that the common law of contract is still dominated by the ideologies of individualism and economic liberalism which were imported from English law during the nineteenth century. Together with the theories of legal positivism and formalism which are closely related to parliamentary sovereignty and the classical rule of law, these ideals were transposed into the common law of contract through the classical model of contract law which emphasises freedom and sanctity of contract and promotes legal certainty. This approach resulted in the negation of the court’s equitable discretion and the limitation of good faith which sustain the social and economic inequalities that were created under colonialism and exacerbated under apartheid rule. In stark contrast, the modern human rights culture grounded in human dignity and aimed at the promotion of substantive equality led to the introduction of modern contract theory in other parts of the world. The introduction of the Constitution as grounded in human dignity and aimed at the achievement of substantive equality has resulted in a sophisticated jurisprudence on human dignity that reflects a harmonisation between its Western conception as based on Kantian dignity and ubuntu which provides an African understanding thereof. In this respect, ubuntu plays an important role in infusing the common law of contract with African values and in promoting substantive equality between contracting parties in line with modern contract theory. It is submitted that this approach to human dignity should result in the development of good faith into a substantive rule of the common law of contract which can be used to set aside an unfair contract term or the unfair enforcement thereof. / Private Law / LL. D.