12.07.2015 Views

The Sanctity of Contracts in English Law - College of Social ...

The Sanctity of Contracts in English Law - College of Social ...

The Sanctity of Contracts in English Law - College of Social ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS
  • No tags were found...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

56 Curtailment <strong>of</strong> Freedom by the Courts" Op<strong>in</strong>ions may differ whether the suicide <strong>of</strong> a manwhile sane should be deemed to be a crime, but it isso regarded by our law. . . . While the law rema<strong>in</strong>sunchanged the court must, we th<strong>in</strong>k, apply thegeneral pr<strong>in</strong>ciple that it will not allow a crim<strong>in</strong>al orhis representative to reap by the judgment <strong>of</strong> thecourt the fruits <strong>of</strong> his crime."CONTRACTS IN RESTRAINT OF TRADEA contract is said to be <strong>in</strong> restra<strong>in</strong>t <strong>of</strong> trade when itsperformance would limit competition <strong>in</strong> any trade orbus<strong>in</strong>ess or pr<strong>of</strong>ession or would restrict one <strong>of</strong> theparties <strong>in</strong> the exercise <strong>of</strong> his trade or occupation. Itappears from a case " decided <strong>in</strong> the reign <strong>of</strong> QueenElizabeth I, that all such restra<strong>in</strong>ts were even thenregarded as void hav<strong>in</strong>g regard to their tendency tocreate monopolies. This has throughout rema<strong>in</strong>edthe general reaction <strong>of</strong> the courts. <strong>The</strong> justificationfor this attitude was expressed <strong>in</strong> modern termsby Lord Macnaghten <strong>in</strong> the celebrated Norde.nfeltcase 12 <strong>in</strong> these words: " <strong>The</strong> public have an <strong>in</strong>terest<strong>in</strong> every person's carry<strong>in</strong>g on his trade freely: so hasthe <strong>in</strong>dividual. All <strong>in</strong>terference with <strong>in</strong>dividual liberty<strong>of</strong> action <strong>in</strong> trad<strong>in</strong>g, and all restra<strong>in</strong>ts <strong>of</strong> trade <strong>of</strong>themselves, if there is noth<strong>in</strong>g more, are contrary topublic policy, and therefore void. That is the generalrule."" Colgate v. Batchelor (1596) Cro.Eliz. 872.12 Nordenfelt v. Maxim NordenfeH, etc., Co. [1894] A.C. 535,565.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!