The general principles in India and England with respect to non-market agreements are more or less the same, which is in fact that all trade restrictions, whether partial or total, are non-extended. The only difference is that in England the decision on the validity of the restriction is made on the basis of adequacy, whereas in India the restrictions would only apply if they fall into the category of legal or judicial exceptions already mentioned. So there are no big differences between the two statutes. English law tends to be more flexible, as the “common sense” clause constantly changes its scope. As LORD WILBERFORCE stated in Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v. Harper`s Garage (Stourport) Ltd, “the classification (of trade restriction agreements) must remain fluid and the categories can never be concluded.” In the common law, a review of reason is followed. A trade restriction is annulled if any agreement by which a party is affected by the absolute application of its rights by the usual judicial procedures or by the usual judicial procedure, or which limits the time within which it can thus assert its rights, is therefore annulled. In this case, the Supreme Court held that the terms of an agreement should not be construed as preventing the other party from seeking an appeal against the appeal. The inability to perform an act does not impose any obligation or obligation on the parties.
Section 56 of the Act declares such a contract void. In this section, it is said that an agreement to do an impossible act in itself is a nulllig. Section 27 is essentially based on public policy and applies to different cases to varying degrees. In the case of Brahmaputra tea co ltd v. Scarth, it was decided by the court that any deference by a person`s own commitment is not invalid and would fall under exceptions in Section 27. These legal and judicial exceptions are explained below. An act contract that becomes impossible after the contract is concluded or because of an event that the promisor could not prevent becomes invalid if the act becomes impossible or illegal. Empty agreements are agreements that are not enforced by the courts. Section 2 (g) of the Indian Contract Act defines an inconclusive agreement as “an agreement that is not legally applicable.” Therefore, in the event of an inconclusive agreement, there is no recourse to the contracting parties.
Under Section 26 of the Indian Contract Act, all agreements restricting marriage, with the exception of a minor, are unhinged. The Romans were the first to delegitimize agreements that respected marriage. The basis of the marriage limitation agreements, which are null and void, is that marriage is a sacrament and that nothing should encroach on the institution of marriage, not even treaties. The idea behind this provision is not to deprive everyone of the personal right to marry someone of their choice. It is important to note here that, according to the section, agreements limiting the marriage of a minor are not invalid. The doctrine of trade restriction was reconsidered by the House of Lords in Esso Petroleum Co Ltd.