In the same case, Lord Denning M.R. stated: «Every member of the Community has the right to choose any trade or transaction it chooses, as long as it does nothing unlawful, as long as it does not make illegal, any contract which interferes with the free exercise of its activity or activity, being limited in the work it can perform for others or in the agreements it may conclude with others, it is a commercial contract. It is not valid unless it is reasonable between the parties and is not in the public interest. Common law has developed with changing business conditions. Thus, in the case of Rogers against Parry[4], in the early seventeenth century, it was found that a promise by a carpenter not to act from his home for 21 years was enforceable against him, because the time and place were safe. It has also been found (by the head of Justice Coke) that a man cannot undertake not to use his profession in general. To be a valid trade restriction, both parties must have provided valuable consideration as to the applicability of their agreement. In the Dyer case[3], a dyer had granted an obligation not to operate in the same city as the applicant for six months, but the applicant had not promised anything in his favour. When Hull J heard the plaintiff`s attempt to impose this reluctance, he exclaimed, «By God, if the plaintiff were there, he would have to go to jail until he paid a fine to the king.» Under Indian law, any agreement relating to the limitation of trade and profession is not binding and non-binding on the parties. By using the term `inconclusive from the outset`, it has demonstrated, for such types of agreements, that it has maintained that non-competition clause in agreements beyond consideration. Indian courts have also refused to impose non-competition clauses after the expiry of employment contracts, as «trade restriction» is prohibited under section 27 of the Indian Contract Act 1872 and have declared them invalid and contrary to public policy because of their ability to deprive a person of his or her fundamental right of subsistence. The Supreme Court`s 1911 decision in Standard Oil Company of New Jersey v.

the United States[14] was based on Taft`s analysis of the rule of reason. In this case, the Tribunal found that a contract violated the Sherman Act only if the treaty restricts trade «inappropriately,» that is, if the treaty has monopolistic consequences. . . .