Skip to main content

Agreement in Restraint of Trade

 Agreement in Restraint of Trade (Sec. 27) of Indian Contract Act 1872


According to section 27, “Every agreement by which any one is restrained from exercising a lawful profession, trade or business of any kind, is to that extent void.” An agreement which unnecessarily curtails the freedom of a person to trade is against public policy. Restraining a person from carrying on a trade generally aims at avoiding competition and has monopolistic tendency and this is both against an individual’s interest as well as the interest of the society and on that ground such restraints are discouraged by law.

Section 27, which declares an agreement in restraint of trade as void, does not allow any distinction between a total restraint or a partial restraint. Thus, whether the agreement imposes a total restraint or a partial, the agreement is void.

Exceptions to an agreement in restraint of trade

  1. Sale of Goodwill

When there is a sale of business by a party along with its goodwill then the buyer may make an agreement with seller not to carry on the business in competition with the buyer.

Case Law- Nordenfelt v. Maxim Nordenfelt Guns and Ammunition Co. Ltd. (1894) A.C. 535.


  1. Exception under The Partnership Act, 1932

Sec. 11(2), Indian Partnership Act, permits the partners of a partnership firm to make a contract which provides that a partner shall not carry on any business other than that of the firm while he is a partner will not carry on their own business ignoring the partnership business.


  1. Restraint by a contract of service 

 An agreement of service under which an employee agrees that he will serve a particular employer for a certain duration, and that he will not serve anybody else during that period, is a valid agreement. During the period of employment, the employer has an exclusive right to avail the services of his employee and, therefore, a restraint on the employee to serve somebody else at the same time is reasonable. Such an agreement is not hit by the doctrine of restraint of trade.

Case Law- Charlesworth v. Mac Donald I.L.R, (1898) 23 Bom. 103.

 

  1. Trade combinations

Sometimes, the traders or manufacturers combine together to eliminate competition as between themselves and makes agreements fixing minimum price, regulating the supply of goods and putting profits in the common pool and dividing the same amongst themselves. Such agreements are neither void on grounds of being opposed to public policy, nor are they deemed to be in restraint of trade.

Case Law- English Hop Growers v. Dering, (1928) 2 K.B. 174.

 

  1. Solus agreement 

When the seller or the manufacturer of a certain product may agree that he will supply the whole of his product to a particular single buyer only, or, similarly, a buyer may agree that he will purchase all his requirements of a certain commodity from a particular seller or manufacturer only and none else. Such agreements are called Solus agreement.

Case Law- Sheikh Kalu v. Ram Saran Bhagat, (1908) 13 Cal. W.N. 388.

 


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree