(British Columbia) Lord Macmillan stated: ‘The law does not condemn every covenant which is in restraint of trade, for it recognizes that in certain cases it may be legitimate, and indeed beneficial, that a person should limit his future commercial activities, as, for example, where he would be unable to obtain a good price on the sale of his business unless he came under an obligation not to compete with the purchaser. But when a covenant in restraint of trade is called in question the burden of justifying it is laid on the party seeking to uphold it. The tests of justification have been authoritatively defined . . : ‘A contract which is in restraint of trade cannot be enforced unless (a) it is reasonable as between the parties; (b) it is consistent with the interests of the public”.
Lord Macmillan
[1934] UKPC 9, [1934] AC 181
Bailii
Canada
Cited by:
Cited – Alec Lobb (Garages) Ltd v Total Oil Ltd CA 1985
The court was asked whether the terms of a lease and lease back amounted to an unconscionable bargain and was unenforceable.
Held: The court affirmed the decision at first instance, but emphasised the need for unconscientious behaviour rather . .
Cited – Alec Lobb (Garages) Ltd v Total Oil Ltd CA 1985
The court was asked whether the terms of a lease and lease back amounted to an unconscionable bargain and was unenforceable.
Held: The court affirmed the decision at first instance, but emphasised the need for unconscientious behaviour rather . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 September 2021; Ref: scu.470021