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
Protecting creators in the digital era – Copyright amendments

Protecting creators in the digital era – Copyright amendments

Nearly 5 decades after its original enactment, South Africa’s copyright regime is undergoing one of the most significant reforms in its history. The Copyright Amendment Bill [B13F-2017] introduces modern protections to secure the financial and digital interests of authors and performers, thereby strengthening their economic rights in an increasingly digital world. While parts of the Bill remain under constitutional review, a landmark 2025 court ruling has already enforced critical protections for users with disabilities. This article breaks down the primary measures intended to safeguard South African creativity.

The importance of due diligence in M&A

The importance of due diligence in M&A

The excitement of a merger or acquisition often sits in the “big picture” strategy, but the success of the deal lives or dies in the details. Due diligence is not a box-ticking exercise. It is the point at which assumptions are tested, risks are priced, and uncomfortable questions are asked. This article explores why looking before you leap, by conducting a thorough due diligence, is the golden rule of mergers & acquisitions (“M&A”) transactions.

Customary marriages stand equal

Customary marriages stand equal

In a landmark judgment delivered on 21 January 2026, the Constitutional Court pronounced welcomed clarity on the interplay between customary marriages, civil marriages, and antenuptial contracts (“ANC”). The Court, by majority decision in VVC v JRM and Others (CCT202/24) [2026] ZACC 2 (21 January 2026) , declined to confirm a High Court order that had declared section 10(2) of the Recognition of Customary Marriages Act 120 of 1998 (“the Recognition Act”) unconstitutional. The majority decision powerfully reaffirmed the equal constitutional status of customary marriages and established that spouses cannot unilaterally alter their matrimonial property regime without judicial oversight.

Sign up to our newsletter

Pin It on Pinterest