Harm should be substantially incontestable although

racialism and non-sexism. Harm should be substantially incontestable. Although the
concept of ‘public interest’ generally refers to the interest of society as a whole, it must
be remembered that a society’s interest may, in certain circumstances, be served by
upholding the interest of a section of the society, or even individual interests. If it is also
kept in mind that public policy generally favours utmost freedom of contract, it becomes
evident that the determination of public policy is often problematic.
A number of contracts will now be discussed as examples of existing indicators of
public policy, but it must be borne in mind that public policy also adapts to changing
convictions with the passage of time.

Page 85
(a) Agreements involving the administration of justice
Any agreement which misuses or thwarts the administration of justice is contrary to
public policy. For example, an agreement which deprives a contracting party of any and
all opportunity to properly defend him- or herself against future wrongs committed
against him or her is void. Another example of this is an agreement by which someone
undertakes not to report another person’s crime to the police. This may also fall under
(b) below and is an instance of the overlapping mentioned above. It is also contrary to
public policy to bribe public officials.
(b) Agreements involving crimes and delicts
Since every person is expected to behave lawfully, an agreement to commit a crime is
contrary to public policy and therefore legally unenforceable. This also applies in respect
of an undertaking by a person to commit a delict, for example to defraud a creditor or an
insurance company.
(c) Agreements affecting the safety of the state
An agreement between a person and a subject of an enemy state, which is at war with
the former’s own country, is contrary to public policy and therefore not permissible if the
agreement is to the advantage of the enemy state. Therefore, an agreement to provide
military supplies to the enemy state is unlawful and invalid.
(d) Agreements restraining a person’s freedom to participate in legal transactions
An agreement which restrains the freedom of a person to take part in legal transactions
is contrary to the public interest if the agreement is such a serious infringement of the
person’s freedom of action that public policy cannot countenance it. In Roman times,
such agreements were considered void. These days, however, the general view is that
they are merely voidable.
According to this principle a person is not permitted to undertake that he or she will
refuse to accept an inheritance upon the future death of the testator. Nor may a person
be deprived of the freedom of testation by an agreement stipulating that his or her
possessions will be bequeathed in a certain manner. Such agreements in respect of
legacies must be distinguished from valid donations between the living.