Abstract
It seems as if cases dealing with covenants in restraint of trade will forever proliferate in the law reports. The reason for this phenomenon is simply that restraint clauses are by their very nature rather onerous contractual provisions in that they entail the curtailment of commercial activity and thus potentially hold grave consequences for the covenanter. Often the enforcement by the covenantee of such a contract is contested by the covenanter. When the enforcement of a restraint is sought two contractual values come into play: the principle of sanctity of contract (pacta sunt servanda) which holds the maintenance of agreements freely entered into, including limitations of future economic activity, as paramount, and the principle of freedom of trade which stresses the right of an individual to engage without restriction in economic activity. Although inter-related, there is an uneasy tension between these principles linked to the question of which of the two should be afforded preference in the circumstances. Other factors have further caused the South African law on restraint to be somewhat tumultuous, having been applied in terms of English and later Roman-Dutch law, and potentially influenced by the interim and final constitutions. Some recent provincial case law stresses the constitutional aspect of restraints while other decisions display a preference for the common law approach. The crisp question which this note seeks to address in light of the various forces which have been brought to bear on this area of the law of contract is whether at this stage a uniform resolution to the issue is apparent.
Highlights
It seems as if cases dealing with covenants in restraint of trade will forever proliferate in the law reports. The reason for this phenomenon is that restraint clauses are by their very nature rather onerous contractual provisions in that they entail the curtailment of commercial activity and potentially hold grave consequences for the covenanter
The traditional restraint doctrine, which the courts favoured under the influence of English law, essentially was that covenants in restraint of trade were prima facie void and unenforceable, unless the covenantee could prove that the restraint was not contrary to public interest, and reasonable as between the parties in that it served to protect specified interests of the covenantee
As alluded to above, since the common law approach still relies heavily on the question of reasonableness inter partes, it seems as if the influence of the traditional approach will remain pivotal to the enquiry, notwithstanding recent dicta in provincial case law regarding the impact of the Constitution
Summary
It seems as if cases dealing with covenants in restraint of trade will forever proliferate in the law reports. The reason for this phenomenon is that restraint clauses are by their very nature rather onerous contractual provisions in that they entail the curtailment of commercial activity and potentially hold grave consequences for the covenanter. When the enforcement of a restraint is sought two contractual values come into play: the principle of sanctity of contract (pacta sunt servanda) which holds the maintenance of agreements freely entered into, including limitations of future economic activity, as paramount, and the principle of freedom of trade which stresses the right of an individual to engage without restriction in economic activity.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
