Is a time bar clause in a contract enforceable?

"My company concluded a contract with a supply company to supply us with imported tiles. Given their reasonable price we bought a large shipment of the tiles. About 9 months later we discovered that a large number of the tiles were broken. We approached the supply company to replace the tiles, but they refused stating that our contract states that we had to notify them of any defects or damage in the tiles within 6 months of delivery. Surely they can’t rely on such a clause when they in fact delivered broken tiles?”

In general our law on prescription governs the period within which claims expire. That said, our law of contract does allow parties broad freedom to contract regarding various aspects of their relationship, including specific timeframes for actions to be performed by parties.

It has accordingly developed over time that contracts often contain so called time bar clauses which impose a time period within which a party must give notice to the other regarding disputes or dissatisfaction, failing which the right to claim relief lapses. Such a time bar clause in effect replaces the periods specified by our law on prescription and that would normally apply to such a claim. The inclusion of such a clause is primarily intended to provide certainty in specific circumstances, although these types of clauses can also hold onerous consequences for a party.

Our courts acknowledge that time bar clauses are enforceable, provided the notice period is clear and reasonable under the circumstances. The courts may also look carefully at the wording of the clause to determine whether the clause excludes both delictual as well as contractual claims. It may be that the wording of the clause is such that not all claims are excluded by the specific wording.

In your case it does appear that as you failed to provide the required notice to the supplier, the time bar clause will apply. The period also does not appear to be unreasonable. However, whether all your remedies have been excluded can only be determined on a closer reading of the specific contract and clause. We would accordingly advise that you consult an attorney to assist you in reviewing the contract and advise you on the merits of your case.

April 5, 2017
Fee or tax? The court decides

Fee or tax? The court decides

With effect from 1 July 2025, the City of Cape Town introduced three new charges on residential rate bills. These charges were challenged by the South African Property Owners’ Association (SAPOA) and AfriForum, who argued that they were unlawful and improperly calculated. The dispute culminated in court applications seeking declaratory orders that the charges were invalid because they were inconsistent with the Constitution, national legislation, and the City’s own By-Laws.

Pay first… maybe not

Pay first… maybe not

For decades, the South African Revenue Service (“SARS”) has relied on the “pay now, argue later” rule as a cornerstone of tax administration. This principle permits SARS to collect disputed taxes before the underlying dispute has been resolved, often placing significant financial strain on taxpayers. While the rule serves an important fiscal purpose, it also raises critical questions regarding fairness, proportionality, and the limits of administrative discretion.

Sign up to our newsletter

Pin It on Pinterest