case laws of LImitations on freedom of contracts Flashcards
- case law related to ‘restraint of mariage’
Lowe v. Peer
What were the facts of ‘Lowe v. peers case’?
the promise by a man in favour of (PEER) Mrs. Catherine Lowe that he would not marry any person other than Mrs. Lowe, and also promises to pay Mrs. Lowe a sum of £ 2,000 if he married somebody else which was void and held to be against public policy.
Which Section deals with restrait of marriage ?
section 26: every agreement in restraifit of
the marriage of any person, other than a minor, is void.
wht was held in ‘Lowe v. Peers case’?
Held, the
agreement was in restraint of marriage and as such void.
what does restraint of marriage means?
The restraint may be general
or partial. Thus the party may be restrained from marrying at all, or from marrying
for a fixed period, or from marrying a particular person,or a class of persons.
a penalty upon remarriage may not be construed as a restraint of
marriage. Thus, an agreement between two co-widows that if ‘one of them remarried
she should forfeit her right to her share in the deceased husband’s property, has been
upheld
- Case law of ‘Restraint to trade’?
Madhub Chunder v. Rajcoomar Doss
What is Restraint to trade? and which section state that?
section 27 which reads: Every
agreement by which any one is restrained from exercising’s lawful profession, trade
or business of any kind, is to that extent void. Thus, all agreements in restraint of
trade, whether general or partial, qualified or unqualified, are void.
what were the fact of the case?
A and B carried on business of braziers in a certain locality in Calcutta. A
promised to stop business in that locality if B paid him Rs. 900 which he had
paid to his workmen as advance. A stopped his business but B did not pay him
the promised money.
What ws held?
Held, the agreement was void and, therefore, nothing could
he recovered on it
- Another case on the same topic?
Nordenfelt v Maxim Nordenfelt Guns and Ammunition Co Ltd
what were the facts of the case?
The appellant, Thorsten Nordenfelt, was a Swedish gun manufacturer with a valuable, world-wide business. He sold the business to a company, the respondents, and agreed to enter into a restrictive covenant not to work for any rival business for a 25 year period in an unlimited geographical area. Later, he worked for a rival business. The respondents brought an action to enforce the covenant by inunction. The case came to the House of Lords.
what was held?
clause by which someone restrains themselves from the exercise of his trade was prima facie unlawful. However, it would discourage trade if someone who has built up a valuable business could not dispose of it to his best advantage. Therefore, restraint of trade clauses would be upheld if they were reasonable.
It was not disputed that this particular clause was reasonable, as a huge sum had been paid for the business. Nor was it injurious to the public. Therefore, the clause was upheld.
- Case related to Uncertain Agreements?
Gunting v. Lynn
What is ‘Uncertain Agreement’ and what section provide for it?
An agreement is called an uncertain agreement when the meaning of that agreement
is not certain or capable of being made certain. Such agreements are declared void
under section 29.
What were the fact of case ‘Gunthing v. Lynn’ ?
In the case of Guthying v. Lynn, a horse was bought for a certain price coupled with
a promise to give E 5 more if the horse proved lucky.
