The high court in January 2025 reaffirmed the application of the maxim caveat subscriptor (a person who signs must take care). This is a truly fundamental principle. Without it, many debts would become unenforceable and the economy would be severally affected. It is a sound principle that when someone signs a contract they are taken to be bound by the ordinary meaning and effect of the words that appear over the signature.

The debtor in this matter alleged that he had not read the document that he had signed with the claimant finance company to purchase a vehicle. The debtor said the finance company informed him that he should simply sign the agreement which he had not read and he would “drive a fancy car”. Besides the general principle, the facts revealed that the debtor had acted in terms of the contract for a number of years.

The conclusion was that the debtor had consented to the terms of the agreement. This was confirmed by the debtor’s conduct in making payments under the agreement. It is trite that, in terms of the principle of caveat subscriptor, the responsibility to understand the agreement before signing is on the person signing the agreement. It was not the debtor’s case that he was forced to sign the agreement. Even if he was told he would be able to drive a fancy car, that does not amount to inducement. By putting his signature on the agreement, the debtor purported to have understood the terms of the agreement which were therefore binding on him.

[Motswane v BMW Financial Services, High Court of South Africa, North West, Mahikeng case no CIV APP MG33/2023 (06 January 2025)]