Taken literally, this could have a different meaning to the one intended - i.e. it removes the right of private parties to exchange goods, form contracts, make gifts, etc.
Furthermore, even just focused on the intent that is intended, I fail to see why the Constitution should be used to regulate the actions of private parties interacting, unless its something grotesque like slavery, which I don't believe this is. Ultimately, any party has the right to go to Court through the many statutes that exist to protect private property from effective theft, not to mention a right at common law.
