Overcoming Language Barriers in Contracts – A South African Perspective

IF 0.2 Q4 LAW
M. Van Eck
{"title":"Overcoming Language Barriers in Contracts – A South African Perspective","authors":"M. Van Eck","doi":"10.21684/2412-2343-2024-11-1-103-130","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Language forms the basis of written contracts, but the use of language may also function as a barrier to contracting parties, particularly when the parties are not proficient in the commercial language of choice, such as English in the case of South Africa. The plain language movement and specifically legislative interventions have placed significant pressure on lawmakers to reform the use of traditional legal English, and consequently, traditional drafting styles. However, many contracts continue to exhibit convoluted language, legalese and poor visual appeal, which ultimately functions as a language barrier for many people. This article examines the various language barriers that exist in contracts from a South African perspective. It does so by assessing the barriers that exist under first, the common law (or the so-called default rules), second, the use of standard contracts, and third, the resistance to the use of plain language as well as the limited application of existing plain language legislation in certain types of contractual engagements. The author proposes dismantling the language barriers by adopting both textual and visual communication devices in order to achieve clear and comprehensible language in all types of contracts. Furthermore, it is suggested that such communication devices should not necessarily be limited to consumer contracts that are legislatively required to comply with plain language requirements. It is only by dismantling existing language barriers that social justice within contracts can be achieved in a society with diverse language proficiencies, such as South Africa. Therein, this article offers insights that are relevant not only within the South African context but also for countries that may face similar language barriers characterised by multiple languages and varying language proficiencies within their populations.","PeriodicalId":41782,"journal":{"name":"BRICS Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BRICS Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21684/2412-2343-2024-11-1-103-130","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Language forms the basis of written contracts, but the use of language may also function as a barrier to contracting parties, particularly when the parties are not proficient in the commercial language of choice, such as English in the case of South Africa. The plain language movement and specifically legislative interventions have placed significant pressure on lawmakers to reform the use of traditional legal English, and consequently, traditional drafting styles. However, many contracts continue to exhibit convoluted language, legalese and poor visual appeal, which ultimately functions as a language barrier for many people. This article examines the various language barriers that exist in contracts from a South African perspective. It does so by assessing the barriers that exist under first, the common law (or the so-called default rules), second, the use of standard contracts, and third, the resistance to the use of plain language as well as the limited application of existing plain language legislation in certain types of contractual engagements. The author proposes dismantling the language barriers by adopting both textual and visual communication devices in order to achieve clear and comprehensible language in all types of contracts. Furthermore, it is suggested that such communication devices should not necessarily be limited to consumer contracts that are legislatively required to comply with plain language requirements. It is only by dismantling existing language barriers that social justice within contracts can be achieved in a society with diverse language proficiencies, such as South Africa. Therein, this article offers insights that are relevant not only within the South African context but also for countries that may face similar language barriers characterised by multiple languages and varying language proficiencies within their populations.
克服合同中的语言障碍--南非视角
语言是书面合同的基础,但语言的使用也可能成为合同当事人的障碍,特别是当当事人不精通所选择的商业语言时,例如在南非使用英语。通俗语言运动和具体的立法干预给立法者带来了巨大的压力,要求他们改革传统法律英语的使用,进而改革传统的起草方式。然而,许多合同仍然使用晦涩难懂的语言、法律术语,视觉效果不佳,最终成为许多人的语言障碍。本文从南非的角度探讨了合同中存在的各种语言障碍。首先,它评估了普通法(或所谓的默认规则)下存在的障碍;其次,评估了标准合同的使用;第三,评估了对使用通俗语言的抵制以及现有通俗语言立法在某些类型的合同约定中的有限应用。作者建议通过采用文字和视觉交流手段来消除语言障碍,从而在各类合同中使用清晰易懂的语言。此外,作者还建议,这种交流工具不一定要局限于消费者合同,因为法律规定消费者合同必须符合浅显易懂的语言要求。只有消除现有的语言障碍,才能在南非这样一个语言能力多元化的社会中实现合同中的社会公正。因此,本文提出的见解不仅适用于南非,也适用于可能面临类似语言障碍的国家,这些国家的人口使用多种语言,语言能力也各不相同。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
25.00%
发文量
22
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊介绍: The BRICS is an acronym for an association of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, evolved from mere investment lingo to an organized network, in the process assuming a greater geopolitical role aimed at institutional reforms that shift global power. All five countries adhere to principles of inclusive macroeconomic and social policies and are focusing on responsible national growth strategies. The BRICS Law Journal is a platform for relevant comparative research and legal development not only in and between the BRICS countries themselves but also between those countries and others. The journal is an open forum for legal scholars and practitioners to reflect on issues that are relevant to the BRICS and internationally significant. Prospective authors who are involved in relevant legal research, legal writing and legal development are, therefore, the main source of potential contributions.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信