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

Contracts in Restraint of Trade 57But the justification advanced in the Tailors ofIpsivich case 13 is in more picturesque, seventeenthcenturyterms: "At the common law no man couldbe prohibited from working in any lawful trade, forthe law abhors idleness the mother of all evil . . .and especially in young men who ought in theiryouth ... to learn sciences and trades which areprofitable to the Commonwealth, and whereof theymight reap the fruit in their old age . . . ; andtherefore the common law abhors monopolies whichprohibit any from working in any lawful trade."The court if it is satisfied that the restraint wasreasonably necessary to protect the interest of thepromisee and was not inimical to the interests of theState, will treat it as valid. Section 21 of the RestrictiveTrade Practices Act, 1956, is in line with thecommon law tradition. It enacts that all registrable,restrictive agreements within the Act are presumed tobe contrary to the public interest unless and untilthey are justified in manner described by the Act.In giving effect to the foregoing principles governingcontracts on restraint of trade the courts have hadto surmount many difficulties. The first and obviousone is the difficulty of defining what is meant bypublic policy. As is so often the case, it is mucheasier to say what it is not than what it is. "Certainspecific classes of contracts," observed Asquith L.J.in 1951, ll "have been ruled out by authority to becontrary to the policy of the law, which is, of course,13(1615) 11 Co.Eep. 53b." In Monklands v. Jack Barclay, Ltd. [1951] 2 K.B. 252, 265.H.I. 5