{"title":"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","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":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"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\":null,\"pages\":null},\"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}","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
摘要
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。
Notes: Commodus usus, exclusive trade rights and public policy in lease: Masstores (Pty) Ltd v Pick ’n Pay Retailers (Pty) Ltd
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.