Restraint_of_trade

Contract Law
Part of the common law series
Contract
Contract formation
Offer and acceptance  · Mailbox rule
Mirror image rule  · Invitation to treat
Firm offer  · Consideration
Defenses against formation
Lack of capacity to contract
Duress  · Undue influence
Illusory promise  · Statute of frauds
Non est factum
Contract interpretation
Parol evidence rule
Contract of adhesion
Integration clause
Contra proferentem
Excuses for non-performance
Mistake  · Misrepresentation
Frustration of purpose  · Impossibility
Impracticability  · Illegality
Unclean hands  · Unconscionability
Accord and satisfaction
Rights of third parties
Privity of contract
Assignment  · Delegation
Novation  · Third party beneficiary
Breach of contract
Anticipatory repudiation  · Cover
Exclusion clause  · Efficient breach
Fundamental breach
Remedies
Specific performance
Liquidated damages
Penal damages  · Rescission
Quasi-contractual obligations
Promissory estoppel
Quantum meruit
Subsets: Conflict of law Commercial law
Other areas of the common law
Tort law  · Property law
Wills and trusts
Criminal law  · Evidence

Restraint of trade is a common law doctrine relating to the enforceability of contractual restrictions on freedom to conduct business.

Contractual obligations not to trade are illegal agreements on public policy grounds unless they are reasonable in the interests of both contracting parties and of the public at large.Nordenfelt v. Maxim, Nordenfelt Guns and Ammunition Co [1894] AC 535

Restraint of trade mainly affects post-termination restrictive covenants in employment contracts, and restrictions on competition in contracts for the sale of businesses.

Restraining workers

Restraining clauses in employment contracts are enforceable if:

• There is a legitimate interest which needs to be protected. Examples of such interests include business connections and business secrets.
• The restraint is reasonable, i.e. sufficiently protects the interest and goes no further.

Generally, if a restraining clause is found to be unreasonable, then it will be void. In certain circumstances though the court may uphold it either by construing ambiguities or by severance. Severance consists of the application of what is known as the "blue pencil test"; if individual words which make the clause excessively wide are able to be crossed out and the clause still makes grammatical sense, without altering the nature of the obligations, then the courts may be willing to sever the illegal aspects of the clause and enforce the remainder.

History

Chief Justice Coke, 17th century English jurist

To be a valid restraint of trade in the first place, both parties must have provided valuable consideration for their agreement to be enforceable. In Dyer\'s Case(1414) 2 Hen. 5, 5 Pl. 26 a dyer had given a bond not to exercise his trade in the same town as the plaintiff for six months but the plaintiff had promised nothing in return. On hearing the plaintiff\'s attempt to enforce this restraint, Hull J exclaimed,

"per Dieu, if the plaintiff were here, he should go to prison till he had paid a fine to the King."

The common law has evolved to reflect changing business conditions. So in the early seventeenth century case of Rogers v. ParryRogers v. Parry (1613) 2 Bulstr. 136 it was held that a joiner who promised not to trade from his house for 21 years could have this bond enforced against him since the time and place was certain. It was also held (by Chief Justice Coke) that a man cannot bind himself to not use his trade generally.

This was followed in Broad v. JolyffeBroad v. Jolyffe (1620) Cro.Jac. 596 and Mitchel v. ReynoldsMitchel v. Reynolds (1711) 1 P.Wms. 181 where Lord Macclesfield asked, "What does it signify to a tradesman in London what another does in Newcastle?" In times of such slow communications and commerce around the country it seemed axiomatic that a general restraint served no legitimate purpose for one\'s business and ought to be void. But already in 1880 in Roussillon v. RoussillonRoussillon v. Roussillon (1880) 14 Ch.D. 351 Lord Justice Fry stated that a restraint unlimited in space need not be void, since the real question was whether it went further than necessary for the promisee\'s protection. So in the NordenfeltNordenfelt v. Maxim, Nordenfelt Gun Co. [1894] AC 535 case Lord Macnaghten ruled that while one could validly promise to "not make guns or ammunition anywhere in the world" it was an unreasonable restraint to "not compete with Maxim in any way." This approach in England was confirmed by the House of Lords in Mason v. The Provident Supply and Clothing Co.Mason v. The Provident Supply and Clothing Co. [1913] AC 724

Notes

External links

• Practical law: Restraint of trade and business secrets

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from Wikipedia