Some of the acts that result in a limitation of commercial rights seem perfectly legal. For example, two competing entrepreneurs, who are discussing their price plans for a golf tour, exercise their freedom of expression. They can`t go out and say it, but the subtext of the conversation can be interpreted as a conspiracy to set prices, if that`s ultimately the result of that conversation. Thus, a third-party competitor, which is put out of business by the resulting pricing, may submit a restriction to the right to trade. With respect to whether the deference was appropriate with respect to the interests of the parties and the public, the Tribunal would generally consider factors such as the length of the restriction and the geographic scope of the clause in question. In the case of Mano Vikrant Singh/Cargill TSF Asia Pte Ltd (8), the Singapore Supreme Court found the clause in question to be inappropriate and therefore unenforceable for the following reasons. First, the term clause was longer than necessary. The non-competition agreement limited trade only for one year, while the clause covered a two-year period. There was no compelling reason why the legitimate interest of the ownership business requires protection beyond the period for which it has already been protected under the non-competition agreement.

Second, the clause has no geographical limit, while the restriction under the non-competition ban is limited to countries where the company has a real place of activity. Finally, the clause included employment and advice to any organization that competed for employees, customers, customers, market shares or resources and financial/merchandise transactions. It was not limited to the activities of the business and was therefore broader than necessary to preserve the defendant`s legitimate interest in ownership. Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act declares all agreements in trade restrictions, not entered into by tanto, with the only exception is the sale of goodwill. Nevertheless, it is important to understand that these agreements are non-abundant and not illegal. In other words, these agreements are not illegal, they are simply not enforceable in court if one of the parties does not fulfill its part of the agreement. Unlike the common law, even partial agreements of trade restriction or reasonable withholding under the Contracts Act are not valid.