Introduction
During October, thousands of runners descended on the streets of Cape Town to test their endurance against one of the most scenic marathon routes in the world. But behind the months of training, race-day nerves, and personal goals lies something often overlooked: the fine print.
Few participants read the terms and conditions they accept when registering, until the unexpected happens. Whether it’s extreme weather, public unrest, or a global pandemic, events like the Cape Town Marathon remind us how fragile even the best-planned occasions can be. When races are cancelled, postponed, or disrupted, a legal question quickly arises: who bears the loss? This is where the concept of force majeure steps in.
What Is Force Majeure?
“Force majeure” is a clause in a contract that excuses one or both parties from performing their obligations when extraordinary events occur, events beyond their control that make performance impossible, unlawful, or impractical. Typical examples include: natural disasters (storms, floods, fires, earthquakes), pandemics or government-imposed lockdowns, civil unrest, strikes, or war.
In essence, a force majeure clause recognises that some events are so unforeseeable and unavoidable that neither party should be penalised for non-performance. Still, the protection depends on the specific wording of the contract. South African law does not automatically imply a force majeure clause. If it isn’t written in, parties must fall back on the common law principle of supervening impossibility, which applies only when performance becomes objectively impossible, not merely inconvenient or unprofitable. The Cape Town Marathon, like most large-scale events, includes a detailed terms and conditions section that runners agree to upon registration. These terms typically include a force majeure provision, stating that the organisers may cancel or alter the event in the case of circumstances beyond their control, such as extreme weather, government orders, or safety risks, and that no refunds will be provided in such cases.
To the average participant, this may feel unfair. After all, the entry fees can be substantial, not to mention travel and accommodation costs. But legally, organisers are entitled to rely on this clause if they can show that an unforeseeable event caused the event’s cancellation and that they acted reasonably and in good faith.
However, this doesn’t mean organisers have carte blanche. In recent years, event organisers have increasingly adopted credit or deferral systems, allowing participants to transfer their entry to a future event as a fairer compromise. This approach gained traction during COVID-19 cancellations, when full refunds were financially unsustainable for organisers, but goodwill credits preserved customer relationships.
Conclusion
The Cape Town Marathon and events like it highlight the delicate balance between commercial certainty and consumer fairness. Force majeure clauses exist to protect organisers from unpredictable crises, but they also test the boundaries of what participants consider just and reasonable. In an age where unforeseen events have become the norm rather than the exception, both parties must approach these contracts with informed caution. For organisers, clarity is protection. For participants, awareness is empowerment.
Ultimately, the law’s goal is not to punish either side for events beyond their control but to ensure that when the starting line never happens, the finish line of fairness still does.
Robyn Shepherd | SchoemanLaw Inc
Recent Comments