Contracts in Restraint of Trade1
Case 1: Wrigglesworth v. Wilson Anthony4
Case 2: Svenson Hair Center Sdn Bhd v. Irene Chin Zee Ling6
Case 3: Shanghai Hall Ltd v. Town House Hotel Ltd8
Case 4: Polygram Records Sdn Bhd v. Hillary Ang & Ors & Anor10
Case 5: Pertama Cabaret Nite Club Sdn. Bhd. v. Roman Tam12
Case 6: Nagadevan Mahalingam v. Millennium Medicare Services14
Case 7: Thomas Cowan & Co Ltd v. Orme16
Case 8: Schmidt Scientific Sdn Bhd v. Ong Han Suan & Ors17
Case 9: Yong Yok Min v. The Miri Municipal Council20
Contracts in Restraint of Legal Proceeding – Section 2921
Case 10: Darshan Singh v. Farid Kamal Hussain21
Contracts in Restraint of Law in Singapore23
Case 11: Wong Bark Chuan, David v. Man Financial (S) Pte Ltd24
Case 12: John Little & Company Ltd v. Wallace26
Restraint Of Trade Law and Legal Definition for International Countries27
Case 13: Jefferson Parish Hosp. Dist. No.2 v. Hyde31
Case 14: Continental TV, Inc. v. GTE Sylvania33
Case 15: Palmer v. BRG of Georgia, Inc.36
What is meant by restraint of trade and legal proceeding?
Restraint of trade is restrictions that have been imposed on free trade or limitations on the individual liberty of traders to buy and sell freely. Restraint of trade clauses seek to protect the goodwill and trade secrets of a business and accordingly will seek to prevent staff from one company being poached by a direct competitor. Restraint of legal proceeding is restrictions from enforcing his action or procedure instituted in a court of law to acquire a benefit, interest, or right or to enforce a remedy. For example, employers are often anxious to guard against direct competition from former employees. The only sure way to guarantee this is to remove them from the marketplace for a limited period of time, and the only way to do this is by means of a restraint of trade clause. Restraint of trade clauses seek to curtail the employee’s opportunity to gain employment and are so subject to stringent analysis, justification resting solely on the prevention of unfair competition.
Contracts in Restraint of Trade
In English law, contracts in restraint of trade are prima facie illegal and void but the presumption may be rebutted by showing that the restraint is reasonable between the parties and to the interests of public. “The public have an interest in every person’s carrying on his trade freely. So has the individual liberty of action in trading, and all restraints of trade of themselves, if there is nothing more, are contrary to public policy, and therefore void. That is the general rule. But there are exceptions: restraints of trade and inference with individual liberty of action may be justified by the special circumstances of a particular case. It is sufficient justification, and indeed it is the only justification, if the restriction is reasonable that is , in reference to the interest of the parties concerned and reasonable in reference to the interests of the public , so formed and so guarded as to afford adequate protection to the party in whose favor if is imposed , while at the same time if is in no way injurious to the public .” Legal contract between a buyer and a seller of a business, or between an employer and employee, that prevents the seller or employee from engaging in a similar business within a specified geographical area and within a specified period. It intends to protect trade secrets or proprietary information but is enforceable only if it is reasonable with reference to the party against whom it is made, and is not contrary to the public policy. In the ordinary course of business transactions, there may arise a peculiar kind of agreement which is in restraint of trade. A contract in restraint of trade may be defined as one which imposes unreasonable and undue restrictions on a person’s right to carry on...