Tacit Agreement Scenario

An important aspect is the manner in which the parties have spoken out on the rights granted, with an ambiguity that leaves the door wide open to an unspoken designation. In the case of Alfred McAlpine – Son (Pty) Ltd v. Transvaal Provincial Administration, the Tribunal defined a tacit term. A tacit provision of the contract arising from the common intent of the parties, as a result of the explicit terms and conditions of the contract and the circumstances surrounding it. Whether a contract contains such a clause is a matter of interpretation. In general, a court would very slowly introduce a tacit clause into a contract, particularly if the parties have entered into a full written agreement dealing in detail with the issue and if there is no need to give effect to the contractual transaction. Unspoken notions are a reality when it comes to interpreting agreements and can also lead to lengthy litigation; Therefore, everyone should be vigilant when it comes to agreements, to ensure that a comprehensive agreement is reached to mitigate future conflicts related to unspoken conditions. It is important to consider what the parties intended or implied to do when an agreement was reached. An unspoken term is demonstrated by clues and not by direct evidence. With respect to Pan American World Airways Inc v.

South African Fire and Accident Insurance Co Ltd, the first step in the investigation into the existence of such a term is whether there is room for the introduction of the alleged tacit clause in the agreement. The unspoken terms can be twofold: consensual tacit terms or implied terms. Consensual tacit conditions are agreed terms between the parties. The implied terms implied are concepts that would have been agreed between the parties had they been notified at the time of the contract. The Common Law Test, combined with a tacit term, is called “The Bystander Test.” This test stems from English legislation, informally explained by the example of a re-educator who asks the parties whether a particular clause should be included in the agreement, with the parties arguing that such a term “naturally” is already part of the agreement, meaning that it is capable of involving it.

Comments are closed.