In South African common law engagement context, a breach of promise claim for damages requires that the promise broken must be one that is in line with the prevailing morals (mores) of society. This means that for a claim to succeed, the promise must be one that is deemed by society as important and worthy of protection. This concept was highlighted in the case of Van Jaarsveld v Bridges (2010) where the court held that the promise must be of such a nature to warrant legal protection.
In the case of Ngwenyama v Mayelane (2017), the court rejected a claim for damages for breach of promise on the basis of the prevailing morals of society. The plaintiff had alleged that the defendant promised to marry her and had broken that promise, causing her emotional distress. The court held that the promise made did not meet the standards expected by society and was not worthy of legal protection.
Therefore, it can be argued that the prevailing morals of society play a critical role in determining what constitutes a just cause for a breach of promise claim. The courts must consider what is considered morally acceptable by society and whether the promise meets these standards. This was emphasised in the case of Leketi v Letsepe (2011) where the court held that a promise to support a partner financially does not warrant legal protection as it falls short of prevailing societal expectations.
In conclusion, the relevance of a breach of promise claim for damages is dependent on the promise made and whether it aligns with the prevailing morals of society. Courts must take into account the expectations of society and the level of importance placed on the promise in deciding whether a claim for damages can be upheld.
With reference to at least two court cases, critically discuss the
relevance of a claim for damages based on a breach of promise –
in no longer than 300 words and through employing the JJS style
and format.
The critical discussion must be formulated around the issue of the
"prevailing morals (mores) of society" and the influence it has on so-
called "just cause" in the South African common law engagement
context (opposed to the customary law context).
1 answer