Appellant Atlanta Bread Company International, Inc. operates a franchise system of “bakery/delis” in twenty-five states, including Georgia. Appellees entered into franchise agreements with appellant to operate five Atlanta Bread Company retail bakery/deli stores —four located in Atlanta, Georgia and one located in Knoxville, Tennessee.1 Each of the franchise agreements contained the following clause: During the term of this Agreement, neither Franchisee nor any Principal Shareholder, for so long as such Principal Shareholder owns an Interest in Franchisee, may, without prior written consent of Franchisor, directly or indirectly engage in, or acquire any financial or beneficial interest in including any interest in corporations, partnerships, trusts, unincorporated associations or joint ventures, advise, help, guarantee loans or make loans to, any bakery/deli business whose method of operation is similar to that employed by store units within the System. During the term of the these franchise agreements, appellees opened and began operating a P.J.’s Coffee & Lounge in Atlanta, Georgia. Appellant, believing appellees to be in violation of the above-quoted clause, sent a notice to appellees that it was terminating the franchise agreements. Appellees filed a request for a temporary restraining order TRO and the trial court entered a consent order that sustained the TRO until the parties’ franchise agreements expired. After the TRO expired, appellant paid appellees approximately $840,000 for the tangible assets of the five stores operated by appellees. The case continued with appellees seeking damages for wrongful termination of the franchise agreements. The trial court granted partial summary judgment to appellees, finding the above-quoted “in-term” clause, as well as a post-termination non-compete clause and a non-disclosure covenant, to be void and unenforceable. The Court of Appeals affirmed Atlanta Bread Co. International, Inc. v. Lupton-Smith , 292 Ga. App. 14 663 SE2d 743 2008 and we granted certiorari. Because there is no error, we likewise affirm. 1. In Georgia, contracts that generally restrain trade are void against public policy. W.R. Grace & Co. v. Mouyal , 262 Ga. 464 1 422 SE2d 529 1992. “Contracts in unreasonable restraint of trade are contrary to public policy and void, because they tend to injure the parties making them, diminish their means of procuring livelihoods and a competency for their families; tempt improvident persons, for the sake of present gain, to deprive themselves of the power to make future acquisitions, and expose them to imposition and oppression; tend to deprive the public of services of people in the employments and capacities in which they may be most useful to the community as well as themselves; discourage industry and enterprise, and diminish the products of ingenuity and skill; prevent competition and enhance prices, and expose the public to all the evils of monopoly. Cit.” Rakestraw v. Lanier , 104 Ga. 188, 194 30 SE 735 1898. In this state, restrictive or non-competition covenants are considered to be partial restraints of trade and must be reasonable as to time, territory and scope to be enforceable. W.R. Grace & Co. v. Mouyal , supra, 262 Ga. at 465.
2. Appellant contends that the clause at issue is a “loyalty provision” and not a restrictive covenant such that it is not subject to being scrutinized for its reasonableness as to time, territory and scope. We disagree. A plain reading of the clause shows that it prohibits the franchisee from engaging in a certain type of business during the term of the parties’ agreement and, thus, it is a partial restraint of trade designed to lessen competition. Such restraints, no matter the nomenclature assigned to them, are disfavored in this state as a matter of public policy. See Barrett-Walls, Inc. v. T.V. Venture, Inc. , 242 Ga. 816, 818 251 SE2d 558 1979; Preferred Risk Mut. Ins. Co. v. Jones , 233 Ga. 423 2 211 SE2d 720 1975. When such restraints are found in franchise or distributorship agreements, our jurisprudence has held time and again that these restraints are subject to strict scrutiny, receiving the same treatment as non-competition covenants found in employment contracts. Id.; Jenkins v. Jenkins Irrigation, Inc. , 244 Ga. 95 2 259 SE2d 47 1979; Watson v. Waffle House, Inc. , 253 Ga. 671, 672 324 SE2d 175 1985. “A non-competition covenant entered into in connection with a franchise or employment contract is enforceable, but only where it is strictly limited in time and territorial effect and is otherwise reasonable considering the business interest of the party sought to be protected and the effect on the franchisee.” Allen v. Hub Cap Heaven, Inc. , 225 Ga. App. 533, 538 484 SE2d 259 1997.
