Notes: Commodus usus, exclusive trade rights and public policy in lease: Masstores (Pty) Ltd v Pick ’n Pay Retailers (Pty) Ltd

Q3 Social Sciences South African law journal Pub Date : 2022-01-01 DOI:10.47348/salj/v139/i2a3
Anthea-lee September-Van Huffel
{"title":"Notes: Commodus usus, exclusive trade rights and public policy in lease: Masstores (Pty) Ltd v Pick ’n Pay Retailers (Pty) Ltd","authors":"Anthea-lee September-Van Huffel","doi":"10.47348/salj/v139/i2a3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In Masstores (Pty) Ltd v Pick ’n Pay Retailers (Pty) Ltd 2017 (1) SA 613 (CC) the Constitutional Court found that the personal right of exclusive trade in the lease contract was contrary to public policy and not worthy of protection. To do so, the court relied on the ‘competition principle’ — that the competitor who delivers the best or fairest (most reasonable) performance must achieve victory, while the one rendering the weakest (worst) performance must suffer defeat. The court was of the view that, as a general proposition, third parties have no legal duty not to infringe contractually derived exclusive rights to trade. According to the majority, exclusive trading rights make the competitive field uneven. The court emphasised that the boni mores must be understood in terms of the values of the Constitution, and that the values contained in the Bill of Rights are a crucial tool in the development of the common law. Although the majority judgment focused on the delict of unlawful third-party interference in a contractual relationship and the nature of interdicts, the judgment relates also to the question of the personal right to commodus usus in a lease contract, and the remedies available to vindicate this right. The intersection of these issues is investigated in this note.","PeriodicalId":39313,"journal":{"name":"South African law journal","volume":"120 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"South African law journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.47348/salj/v139/i2a3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In Masstores (Pty) Ltd v Pick ’n Pay Retailers (Pty) Ltd 2017 (1) SA 613 (CC) the Constitutional Court found that the personal right of exclusive trade in the lease contract was contrary to public policy and not worthy of protection. To do so, the court relied on the ‘competition principle’ — that the competitor who delivers the best or fairest (most reasonable) performance must achieve victory, while the one rendering the weakest (worst) performance must suffer defeat. The court was of the view that, as a general proposition, third parties have no legal duty not to infringe contractually derived exclusive rights to trade. According to the majority, exclusive trading rights make the competitive field uneven. The court emphasised that the boni mores must be understood in terms of the values of the Constitution, and that the values contained in the Bill of Rights are a crucial tool in the development of the common law. Although the majority judgment focused on the delict of unlawful third-party interference in a contractual relationship and the nature of interdicts, the judgment relates also to the question of the personal right to commodus usus in a lease contract, and the remedies available to vindicate this right. The intersection of these issues is investigated in this note.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
注:商品使用权,独家贸易权和租赁公共政策:Masstores (Pty) Ltd诉Pick ' n Pay Retailers (Pty) Ltd
在Masstores (Pty) Ltd诉Pick ' n Pay Retailers (Pty) Ltd 2017 (1) SA 613 (CC)一案中,宪法法院认定租赁合同中的个人独家贸易权违反了公共政策,不值得保护。为此,法院依据“竞争原则”——提供最好或最公平(最合理)表现的竞争者必须取得胜利,而提供最弱(最差)表现的竞争者必须遭受失败。法院认为,作为一项一般主张,第三方没有法律义务不侵犯合同产生的贸易专有权。多数人认为,专有权使竞争环境不公平。法院强调,必须根据《宪法》的价值来理解善意的习俗,而《权利法案》所载的价值是发展普通法的重要工具。虽然多数判决侧重于非法第三方干涉合同关系的违法行为和禁令的性质,但判决也涉及租赁合同中对既得物的个人权利问题,以及可用于维护这一权利的救济办法。本文将研究这些问题的交集。
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 去求助
来源期刊
South African law journal
South African law journal Social Sciences-Law
自引率
0.00%
发文量
24
期刊最新文献
A legislative framework for shareholder approval of political donations and expenditure by companies in South Africa Reflecting on the tension between the development of the common law and the doctrine of separation of powers in Paulsen v Slip Knot Investments 777 (Pty) Ltd Notes: The Krugersdorp gang rapes — Another Tshabalala v S; Ntuli v S? Book Review: Tjakie Naudé & Daniel Visser (eds) The Future of the Law of Contract: Essays in Honour of Dale Hutchison (2021) The classification of a ‘maritime claim’ in South Africa under the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1