Masstores (Pty) Ltd v Pick n Pay Retailers (Pty) Ltd (CCT242/15) [2016] ZACC 42 ; 2017 (2) BCLR 152; 2017 (1) SALR 613 (CC) (25 November 2016) per Froneman J (Nkabinde ADCJ, Khampepe J, Madlanga J, Mbha AJ, Mhlantla J, Musi AJ and Zondo J concurring)

“[35]   Restraint of trade cases exhibit the same tendency.  It is generally accepted that a restraint “will be considered to be unreasonable, and thus contrary to public policy, and therefore unenforceable, if it does not protect some legally recognisable interest of the employer, but merely seeks to exclude or eliminate competition”.[1]

[36]   As a general proposition then, there is no legal duty on third parties not to infringe contractually derived exclusive rights to trade.  Do the particular circumstances of this case justify a different finding?”

Further excerpt without footnotes

“[40]   Reference was made to restraint of trade cases where not only the contractually bound employee, but also the new employer, may be interdicted, without complying with these requirements.  Yet the analogy is not apt.  Those cases establish the principle that reasonable restraints are binding on the contracting parties themselves and that third parties are only secondarily liable as accessories to the contractual breach.[2]  And, as seen above, if the contractual restraint is a bare restriction on competition, not linked to protectable interests like goodwill, it will not be enforced against either the contacting party or the third party who assisted or induced the breach.   Here the enforceability of the exclusivity clause in the lease between Pick n Pay cannot be challenged by Masstores, because it is not a party to that contract”.