Barkhuizen v Napier

Barkhuizen's house burned down. His insurance policy required claims to be submitted within 90 days. He submitted his claim late and the insurer rejected it based on the time-bar clause. Barkhuizen argued the clause was contrary to public policy and should not be enforced because it produced an unfair result.

The appeal was dismissed. The time-bar clause was enforced and Barkhuizen's claim for insurance proceeds failed.

This case established the test for determining when contractual terms are contrary to public policy in constitutional South Africa. It balanced freedom of contract with substantive fairness and clarified how courts should approach challenges to contractual terms based on constitutional values. The case is central to understanding the constitutionalization of contract law.