Exclusionary clauses in South Africa have thus far been interpreted narrowly by the South African Courts. It has been accepted that where a patient enters into a medical contract/agreement with a hospital that includes a clause excluding the hospital and its employees from any form of liability whether negligently or not, the patient has no form of recourse against the hospital for any damages caused except that caused by gross negligence; the hospital will be absolved of any form of liability. The term caveat subscriptor applies – “let the signer be aware” that he/she is bound by the agreement signed by him/her whether or not it was read and understood. The leading case in South Africa dealing with exclusionary clauses in medical contracts is Afrox Healthcare Limited v Strydom. Since that decision the Consumer Protection Act has came into existence. My research question involves determining the impact an exclusionary clause would have, when analysed in terms of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act with particular reference to its applicability and enforcement in medical/hospital contracts. The Afrox case has in itself been a controversial decision, with many legal writers of the opinion that the principles laid down by the case need to be overturned as the judgement is not in line with public policy. It is argued that with the Consumer Protection Act in place, it can be assumed that exclusionary clauses in medical/hospital will no longer be valid. The Act is a step in the right direction towards patient/consumer protection and awareness. / Thesis (LL.M.)-University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, 2013.

This dissertation will examine the current state of our common law in relation to its treatment of exemption clauses in contracts, and will focus on recent developments which may augur greater scope and a new approach to be taken in future for South African courts to ensure fairness and the promotion of substantive justice for contracting parties faced with such provisions. Whilst it is acknowledged that exemption clauses are considered to be an integral part of most contracts and are used to facilitate the efficient running of businesses, their continued use in standard form contracts have been viewed with judicial suspicion and scrutiny as the inherent nature of these clauses have the potential to operate unfairly against a contracting party by excluding their rights of recourse which they would have otherwise had at common law. Public policy has always been a benchmark against which potentially unfair contracts terms have been measured however, the advent of the Constitution has brought about a new meaning to be prescribed to public policy as the Constitutional Court has declared that it is now deeply rooted and informed by constitutional values of dignity, equality, freedom and more recently ubuntu which is to infuse the common law principles of contract. Despite these developments, the new meaning of public policy and the apparent elevation of the spirit of ubuntu as an overarching and founding constitutional value has not been fully utilised by courts in a manner which can effectively address these potentially unfair, one-sided and abusive exemption clauses by declaring them to be contrary to public policy. Notwithstanding legislative acknowledgement and the subsequent enactment of the Consumer Protection Act 2008 which has brought about greater regulation of unfair and unconscionable contract terms, it is argued that the testing of potentially unfair and abusive exemption clauses against the dictates of public policy and ubuntu in a constitutional context may provide the South African courts with a new approach to pursue greater substantive justice in respect of these notoriously problematic clauses. / Thesis (M.A.)-University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, 2012.