In private international law of contract, the law regulating the rights and obligations of contracting parties may (whether objectively determined or chosen by the parties), in some instances, be limited by either public policy considerations or other relevant mandatory rules. In this regard, the public policy and the overriding mandatory rules of three places -that of the forum state, the applicable law (if different from the lex fori) and the law of the place of performance (or a third state with relevant connection to the contract) -have been considered by both jurists and scholars as being important. However, this article is limited to matters concerning choice of law rules on overriding mandatory provisions (but not public policy considerations). This article assesses the various private international law rules utilised by the South African courts in ascertaining which overriding mandatory provisions must apply to international contracts for the sale of goods. The aim is to adopt a general private international law of contract rule that effectively addresses the difficulty in determining the state, whose overriding mandatory provisions may legitimately claim application over certain relevant issues in international sales contracts. To this end, the article considers the general application of the overriding mandatory rules of the forum and that of the applicable law state (lex causae) to determine if these laws may legitimately by applied to contracts as it is practiced by some courts. Thereafter, the article considers the application of the overriding mandatory rules of the place of performance (locus solutionis) or other relevant third states and demonstrate that it is the overriding mandatory provisions of "a relevant state" that may legitimately derogate the application of certain provisions of the proper law of an international contract.

Die beginsel van partyoutonomie is ’n belangrike beginsel van die kontraktereg en word vandag ook beskou as die belangrikste verbindingsfaktor in die internasionale kontraktereg. In gevorderde ekonomieë word partye toegelaat om die reg te kies wat van toepassing moet wees op die regte en verpligtinge van hul internasionale kontrakte ter bevordering van grensoorskrydende handel en beleggings. Die outeur ondersoek in hierdie artikel die teoretiese basis vir die handhawing van die beginsel van partyoutonomie met betrekking tot regskeuse in internasionale kontrakte. Afgesien van die tradisionele regverdiging vir die bevordering van die beginsel, word in die artikel ook grondwetlike verankering oorweeg. In hierdie verband stel dit voor dat grondwetlike bepalings wat die vrye ontwikkeling van persoonlikheid of menswaardigheid wil beskerm, ook die reg van private partye omvat om die reg van toepassing op hulle internasionale kontrakte te kies. Dieselfde geld met betrekking tot die bepaling wat in sekere grondwette gevind word ter bevordering van aktiwiteite wat kan lei tot die vestiging van ’n gesonde ekonomie. Die artikel is daarop gemik om regsekerheid en voorspelbaarheid te bevorder deur middel van partyoutonomie in die regskeuse vir kontrakte. Sodanige erkenning sal na verwagting die nodige vertroue in private sakepersone en beleggers inboesem en gevolglik internasionale handel en beleggingsaktiwiteite binne ’n bepaalde jurisdiksie bevorder. In die lig van die bogenoemde, stel hierdie artikel voor dat, tensy daar dwingende redes bestaan om partye die reg te ontsê om die stel regsreëls te kies wat hulle verkies om hul internasionale kommersiële kontrakte te reguleer, die howe oor die algemeen hulle rol moet beperk tot die interpretasie en toepassing van kontraktuele bedinge.

No abstract

Generally, under choice of law, the issue of uncertainty associated with the determination of the governing law of international contracts is quite clear. The level of this uncertainty, however, increases when dealing with questions about which law governs the validity of such contracts. Like other areas of private international law, matters concerning validity present several unique challenges both in theory and in practice, making it the most complicated topic in private international law literature. In fact, the uncertainty in this area has led to a situation where different rules are applied by different states, without taking into consideration the link that should exist between the state whose law becomes applicable and the function that the law is expected to serve – determining the validity of a contract. This article attempts to contribute to existing literature on choice of law questions regarding the validity of international contracts and also provides solutions, based on the underlying principles of private international law of contract that effectively address the uncertainty in this area of law. The article submits that the law that governs the validity of an international contract must, at all times, be one that has a legitimate interest in matters concerning the legality or otherwise of such contracts. In this regard, the article strongly opposes the theory that the parties’ intention determines the law that governs the validity of their contract. After a careful examination of literature and landmark judicial decisions in both civil law and common law jurisdictions, the article concludes that the lex loci solutionis is the appropriate law to determine matters relating to the validity of international contracts.

In ’n regstelsel waar partye by internasionale kontrakte die outonomie gelaat word om die reg van toepassing op hulle kontrak te kies, word algemeen verwag dat die reg wat hulle kies die reg van ’n staat is. Die keuse van enige soort buitestaatlike reg as die reg van toepassing op kommersiële kontrakte word gewoonlik nie deur die howe toegelaat nie. Indien ’n bepaalde internasionale kontrak ’n arbitrasieklousule bevat, verskil die posisie. Daar is presedente wat toon dat arbitrasie-tribunale bereid is om regskeuses in internasionale kontrakte te handhaaf en toe te pas, ongeag die aard van die gekose reg, hetsy dit staatlik, of buitestaatlik is. Die vraag wat in hierdie verband ontstaan, is waarom howe arbitrasietoekennings sonder voorbehoud afdwing, selfs wanneer ’n nie-staatlike reg deur die tribunaal toegepas is om tot die beslissing te kom wat nou afgedwing moet word, maar terselfdertyd die toepassing van dieselfde buitestaatlike reg verwerp in sake wat direk voor hulle kom. In hierdie artikel argumenteer die outeur dat howe die keuse deur die partye van buitestaatlike reg behoort te aanvaar op grond van die beginsel van partyoutonomie. Die outonomiebeginsel speel ’n rol in alle kommersiële kontrakte. In die internasionale kontraktereg word partyoutonomie vandag beskou as die belangrikste verbindingsfaktor vir die vasstelling van die reg. Die erkenning van die keuse van buitestaatlike reg bied aan partye die geleentheid om toepaslike regsreëls te kies vir die hantering van spesifieke juridiese uitdagings wat verband hou met hul kontrak. Partye sal baat by die gevolglike regsekerheid en voorspelbaarheid wat die reg betref wat van toepassing is op die kontrak. Dit sal sodoende help om lang en duur geskille te voorkom wat bloot handel oor welke reg van toepassing sou wees. Die outeur bespreek welke kategorieë van buitestaatlike reg gekies behoort te kan word om internasionale kontrakte te beheers.