The Lowe v. case. Peers set a precedent in the Marriage Limitation Act. In this case, the accused stated that if he married someone other than the complainant, he would give him 1000 pounds within three months of his marriage. It was decided that such an agreement was a null and void. The Partnership Act of 1932 provides another exception to the rule limiting trade restriction agreements. There are three exceptions in the law. These are: Shalini has an office supplies and books store in a place in Bareilly. A Zahida person plans to open his store with similar goods in the same place. Fearing competition in the market, Shalini entered into an agreement with Zahida not to open its business in the region for 15 years and promised in exchange to pay him a certain amount of money each month. Later, Shalini will not pay the agreed amount. Zahida is trying to take the case to court. The agreement is inconclusive, Zahida has no case.
Here, the complainant was the owner of a fleet of buses travelling between Pune and Mahabaleshwar. The defendant also had a similar case in the same area. In order to avoid competition, the plaintiff purchased the defendant`s business with the overvalue and contractually forced him not to open a similar business in the area for 3 years. The accused did not comply and began his activities. The Tribunal found that the agreement was valid, as it was the exception of S.27. In this case, two similar contractors have agreed in partnership that only one of their plants will operate at the same time and that the profits be distributed among them. This deduction has been validated. Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act of 1872 states that an agreement excluding anyone from the exercise of a legitimate profession, business or business is in the state.
The main reason for this section is that the restrictions are unfair and unfair, as they impose an inappropriate restriction on a party`s individual liberty. However, when one party sells its value to another, it may agree with the buyer that it will not conduct a similar transaction within the local limits indicated. One of the principles is that a gentleman does not have the right to prevent his prime contractor from participating in the competition after the termination of the employment relationship, but that he is entitled to adequate protection against the exploitation of trade secrets. In Mason v. Provident Clothing Co, Lords did not allow an employer to hold its screen for a period of three years after the end of its service. Viscount HALDANE LC stressed that advertising capacity is a natural gift and is not due to specific employer training. If they had merely asked him not to attach himself to canvases in the area where he had actually contributed to the construction of the business will, or in a field limited to places where the knowledge acquired in his employment might have become accustomed to their prejudices, they might have been able to secure a right to hold him within those limits.