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.

If the expectancy that someone was to act according to what we deem to be his or her “duty” was that straightforward, there would be no need to address the issues of liability of the employee for the wrongful acts of the employer. The recent - and some say alarming - trend in South Africa to hold employers (particularly the government) liable for wrongful, culpable acts committed by their employees, gives rise to difficulties and any inquiry into the possible vicarious liability of the employer should necessarily always start by asking whether there was in fact a wrongful, culpable act committed by the employee. If not, there can neither be direct liability of the employee nor vicarious liability by the employer. Where the employee did indeed commit a delict, the relationship between the wrongdoer and his or her employer at the time of the wrongdoing becomes important. It is then often, in determining whether the employee was acting in the scope of his or her employment that normative issues come to the fore. Over the years South African courts have devised tests to determine whether an employee was in fact acting in the scope of his employment. / Jurisprudence / LLM

Thesis (MPhil)--University of Stellenbosch, 2003. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: On The io" of May 1994 Nelson Mandela was inaugurated as the first democratically elected black president of South Africa. The occasion was regarded, both nationally and internationally, as a triumph for humanity and perfused with a widespread optimism for the future of South Africa. Mandela proclaimed in his inaugural speech that "Never, never and never again shall it be that this beautiful land will experience oppression of one by another .... The sun shall never set on so glorious an achievement." However, now, less than 10 years later the rapidly accelerating and devastating HIV/AIDS epidemic is again 'obscuring the sun'. Those people affected so negatively by the racial, economic and gender injustices of the apartheid past, seem again to be suffering a possible injustice, because of a health and welfare system that is struggling to meet the needs of the HIV affected population. The purpose of this dissertation is to examine the concept of distributive justice in South Africa, within the context of this devastating epidemic. I begin by discussing the Bill of Rights in the South African Constitution. I argue that an acceptable framework for a theory of justice for health care in South Africa, must be worked out against the background of this egalitarian Bill of Rights. I then consider the extent of the HIV epidemic, the effect it is having on the people of South Africa and the consequent implications for health care needs. It is within this context that I examine and compare three theories of distributive justice, namely utilitarianism, John Rawls' theory of "Justice as Fairness" and a libertarian concept of justice, as proposed by Robert Nozick. Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory that focuses on producing the 'greatest happiness for the greatest number'. I argue that many health policy decisions in South Africa are in fact guided by this principle. However utilitarianism has both strengths and weaknesses which are critically examined. Within the framework of health care policy making, utilitarian justice dictates that rights are derivative and that the welfare of the majority usually takes precedence over the pressing needs of a minority. This issue in particular is discussed. Rawls' theory of "Justice as fairness" is critically discussed next. This theory has been adapted to health care by Norman Daniels, who argues that the Rawlsian principle of "fair equality of opportunity" is a suitable founding principle for health care institutions. Apartheid entrenched a system of 'inequality of opportunity'. Consequently, a theory that focuses on equality of opportunity, has many advantages within the South African context. I examine this theory in detail and provide justification for my assertion that it could be usefully adapted to South African healthcare and the HIV/AIDS epidemic. Finally, I discuss a Libertarian (Nozickian) theory of justice and examine both the strengths and weaknesses of this theory. I attempt to demonstrate why a libertarian system, with it vigorous commitment to moral and economic individualism and belief that one is only entitled to that share of healthcare that can be paid for, would be unjust, if rigorously applied within the post-apartheid South African context. I conclude my dissertation by reiterating my assertion that "Justice as Fair Equality of Opportunity" could be used as a just foundation for a theory of justice for health care in current day, HIV/AIDS affected South Africa. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Teorieë van geregtigheid en 'n gesondheidsbeleid vir die VIGS epidemie in Suid Afrika: 'n vergelykende ontleding. Op die 10de Mei 1994 is Nelson Mandela ingehuldig as die eerste demokraties verkose swart president van Suid- Afrika. Die geleentheid is in beide Suid-Afrika en in die buiteland beskou as 'n oorwinning vir humaniteit. Optimisme oor Suid-Afrika se toekoms was oral tasbaar. Mandela het in sy inhuldigingstoespraak verkondig dat dit nooit weer sal gebeur dat hierdie pragtige land sal lyonder die onderdrukking van een oor die ander nie. Hy het gesê dat die son nooit salondergaan op so 'n wonderlike prestasie nie. Nou, minder as tien jaar later, is die verwoestende VIGS epidemie besig om weer die 'son te laat ondergaan'. Dieselffde mense wat alreeds onder apartheid se rasisme en ekonomiese en geslagsongeregtighede gely het, blyk nou weer verontreg te word; hierde keer omdat die gesondheids- en welsynsisteem sukkel om in die behoeftes van die VIGS-geaffekteerde populasie te voorsien. Die doel van hierdie verhandeling is om die konsep van distributiewe geregtigheid in die konteks van die dreigende VIGS epidemie te bespreek. Ek begin met 'n bespreking van die Verklaring van Regte soos vervat in die Suid-Afrikaanse Grondwet. Ek voer aan dat enige aanvaarbare teorie oor geregtigheid in die Suid-Afrikaanse gesondheidsisteem gegrond moet word op hierdie egalitêre Verklaring van Regte. Tweedens kyk ek na die omvang van die VIGS epidemie, die effek wat dit op die HIV-positiewe populasie en hulle familielede het, en die gevolglike implikasies vir gesondheidsbehoeftes. Dit is binne hierdie konteks dat ek drie teorieë van distributiewe geregtigheid ondersoek en vergelyk; naamlik utilitarisme, John Rawls se teorie van "Justice as Fairness", en 'n libertynse konsep van geregtigheid soos voorgestel deur Robert Nozick. Utilitarisme is 'n konsekwensialistise teorie wat beteken dat die regte daad die een is wat in enige situasie die grootste geluk vir die meeste persone sal meebring. Ek voer aan dat baie van die beleidsrigtings wat 'n gesondheidsorg in Suid-Afrika gevolg is, deur hierdie teorie beïnvloed is. Utilitarisme het uiteraard sterk en swak punte en beide kante word krities ondersoek. In 'n gesondheidsorg konteks beteken utilitarisme dat regte altyd afgelei is en dat die welsyn van die meerderheid gewoonlik belangriker is as die van 'n minderheid, selfs wanneer die probleme van die minderheid ernstig en dringend is. Rawls se teorie van geregtigheid word vervolgens krities bespreek. Hierdie teorie is deur Norman Daniels aangepas vir gesondheidsorg. Hy stel voor dat Rawls se beginsel van 'regverdige gelykheid van geleentheid' baie effektief aangepas kan word vir gesondheidsorginstellings. Apartheid het 'n sisteem van ongelyke geleentheids verskans; gevolglik hou 'n teorie wat gelykheid van geleentheid verseker baie voordele vir die Suid- Afrikanse situasie in. Ek bespreek hierdie teorie in detail en poog om my standpunt dat die teorie besonder geskik is vir Suid-Afrikaanse gesondheidsisteem - veral in die konteks van die VIGS epidemie - te regverdig. Laastens bespreek ek die libertynse teorie van geregtigheid soos voorgestel deur Robert Nozick. Ek probeer aantoon waarom hierdie teorie, wat gebaseer is op morele en ekonomiese individualisme en gevolglik aanvoer dat mense geregtig is op gesondheidsorg alleenlik as hulle daarvoor kan betaal, onregverdig is in die Suid-Afrikaanse post-apartheid konteks. Ek sluit hierdie. verhandeling af deur weer te argumenteerdat Rawls se teorie en die beginsel van 'geregtigheid as gelyke geleentheide' uiters geskik is as 'n grondslag vir gesondheidsorg in Suid-Afrika vandag.

If the expectancy that someone was to act according to what we deem to be his or her “duty” was that straightforward, there would be no need to address the issues of liability of the employee for the wrongful acts of the employer. The recent - and some say alarming - trend in South Africa to hold employers (particularly the government) liable for wrongful, culpable acts committed by their employees, gives rise to difficulties and any inquiry into the possible vicarious liability of the employer should necessarily always start by asking whether there was in fact a wrongful, culpable act committed by the employee. If not, there can neither be direct liability of the employee nor vicarious liability by the employer. Where the employee did indeed commit a delict, the relationship between the wrongdoer and his or her employer at the time of the wrongdoing becomes important. It is then often, in determining whether the employee was acting in the scope of his or her employment that normative issues come to the fore. Over the years South African courts have devised tests to determine whether an employee was in fact acting in the scope of his employment. / Jurisprudence / LL. M.

Text in English with summaries in English and Afrikaans / Bibliography: leaves 89-108 / Democracy in South Africa came at a price. The apartheid era did not accommodate or incorporate democratic and constitutional principles. The year 1996 saw a democratic Constitution being adopted, having been certified by the Constitutional Court. The Bill of Rights in the Constitution guarantees the rights and freedoms of all South Africans. The apartheid era ensured that the rights which are enjoyed today were reserved for only a portion of the South African population. This study emphasises the importance of the Constitution and the role and responsibility of every citizen to defend it. In defending the Constitution, the rights and freedoms of all South Africans are defended. The Bill of Rights promotes social development for all South Africans, as opposed to disparate social development under the divisive apartheid era. The Constitution is a powerful enabler for democracy and social cohesion and unity. This study depended on secondary sources which are vital to keeping historical facts alive and truthful. Desktop research is qualitative and, while less expensive, produces acceptable results and findings. / Demokrasie in Suid-Afrika het met 'n prys gekom. Die apartheidsera het nie demokratiese en grondwetlike beginsels geakkommodeer of opgeneem nie. In 1996 word 'n demokratiese Grondwet aanvaar, wat deur die Grondwet Hof gesertifiseer was. Die Handves van Menseregte in die Grondwet waarborg die regte en vryhede van alle Suid-Afrikaners. Die apartheidsera het verseker dat die regte wat vandag geniet word, slegs vir 'n gedeelte van die Suid-Afrikaanse bevolking gereserveer is. Hierdie studie beklemtoon die belangrikheid van die Grondwet en die rol en verantwoordelikheid van elke burger om dit te verdedig. Deur die Grondwet te verdedig word die regte en vryhede van alle Suid-Afrikaners verdedig. Die Handves van Menseregte bevorder sosiale ontwikkeling vir alle Suid-Afrikaners, in teenstelling met uiteenlopende sosiale ontwikkeling onder die verdelende apartheidsera. Die Grondwet is 'n kragtige instaatsteller vir demokrasie, sosiale samehorigheid en eenheid. Hierdie studie was afhanklik van sekondêre bronne wat noodsaaklik is om historiese feite lewendig en waaragtig te hou. Desktop-navorsing (boek) is kwalitatief en hoewel dit goedkoper is, lewer dit aanvaarbare resultate en bevindings op. / Development Studies / M.A. (Development Studies)