On this basis, Cloete JA found that Article 4 is not limited to the security of payment security, but must be interpreted on the basis of its title, so that it determines not only the security of payment, but also the amount of money to be paid. Cloete JA therefore ruled in favour of the defendant and upheld the High Court`s decision to instruct the applicant to repay the amount received under the guarantee. It is clear that the four decisions (this decision and the three on which the judge relies) are based on the fact that a title can help if it is consistent with the following clause and that a clause must be read in its entirety to determine its entirety. It would appear, therefore, that if the content of a clause is inconsistent with the title, the title (in a document containing a provision stipulating that titles can be ignored when interpreting the document) must be ignored when determining the rights and obligations of the parties. The case is a reminder of the inclusion of an express provision that the titles of a contract can only be used for simplicity and cannot be used in the interpretation of the treaty. The clause is a simple and imperfect solution to the problem of ill-developed agreements, with titles in conflict with the language of the clause. This is a practical solution that is best used in a pinch if the parties do not have the time or resources to create clear titles and clauses. Like sharing an agreement in article (with inevitably an article title), the indication of contractual objects can guide the reader through the content. It is clear that the use of subtitles introduces the possibility that the label will no longer cover the content of the clause. In the case of short contract periods, such a risk is quite limited, while the labels still help the reader. The defendant chose the second payment option and ABSA Bank provided the applicant`s lawyers with a bank guarantee in which ABSA agreed to pay the applicant R115,531.87, plus interest. However, the Park Road modernization project was not completed on April 1, 2009; February 15, 2010. Cloete JA objected and pointed out that in the absence of an explicit contrary provision, the titles in the contracts can be taken into account in the interpretation of the treaty.

Cloete JA stated that if a title conflicts with the body or a clause of the contract, then the text of the contract will prevail, because the intention of the parties will be set out in more detail in the text of the treaty. However, if a title and the detailed provisions in the clause can be read together, it must be read. The title clause in the general provisions stipulates that the securities and inscriptions used in the agreement should only be used for reference purposes and should not affect the interpretation of the agreement. Integrating a title clause is a quick fix to hide misconceptions. On the other hand, the omission of the title clause, rather creates time to use coherent and well formulated titles to show the main purpose of each clause, an agreement that is even easier to interpret than an agreement that uses a title clause to document cracks.