In order to determine whether there was a tacit clause, the General Court decided that it had to examine whether there was any room for manoeuvre for the importation of the alleged tacit clause, emphasising in particular the existence of the `global agreement` and `no modification` clauses, as well as the completeness of the written contract (in this case 45 pages), which together strongly opposed the reading of the tacit clauses. However, the General Court found that the mere existence of a `comprehensive agreement` or a `non-modification clause` did not in itself preclude the reading of a tacit clause. Home ” Contract Law ” Strengthening tacit terms In another context of the contract interpretation law, a similar restrictive approach was adopted in the City Metropolitan City against Blair Atholl Homeowners Association  1 All SA 291 (SCA), where the SCA curbed the recent tendency of Supreme Courts to allow extrinsic evidence on the interpretation of the terms of a written agreement. He confirmed that evidence of a previous negotiation is inadmissible in the interpretation of the terms of a written contract, except perhaps in very exceptional circumstances. While the terms of a legal document have yet to be interpreted in its environment and context, the scope of extrinsic evidence permitted in this regard has been narrowed by Blair Atholl, in accordance with the consistently adapted principles of Natal Joint Municipal Pension Fund against Endumeni Municipality 2012 (4) SA 593 (SCA). The courts have recently reaffirmed the restrictive scope of the reading of implied conditions in written contracts. The Supreme Court of Appeal`s judgment in adhu Investments CC and Others v Padayachee (1410/2016)  ZASCA 63, In which Hugo Heinrich Knoetze (Knoetze), Kumaran Padayachee (Padayachee) and others had agreed to launch a “lucrative” business transaction (transaction), but, as sometimes, the agreement failed and the parties prepared a withdrawal agreement. Knoetze had, however, set up a separate structure before the signing of the Withdrawal Agreement, which resulted in a result similar to that of the transaction, without the other parties. Although the judgment was delivered in favour of Padayachee, it was not based on the fact that the courts introduced a tacit period in the loan agreement. The court reiterated that in general, “it would be very slow to import a tacit term into a contract, especially if. the parties have concluded a full written agreement which covers the subject matter of the contract in great detail and which is not necessary to confer commercial effectiveness on the contract`.
Overall, the common law test for reading a tacit term is the so-called “officious bystander test” – a tacit term would be read in a treaty if, at the request of a foreigner, the contracting parties had answered in the affirmative without hesitation and unanimously to the inclusion of the proposed duration. The rules of contract law make it possible to recover damages resulting from an infringement when the injuring party had “reasons to know” such damages at the time of the conclusion of the contract. It is common for demanding parties to systematically negotiate from these standard rules, given that the extent of consequential damage is very uncertain and is largely controlled by the non-injuring party. . . .