Question Description
Directions:The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.Every person has a lawful right to do or adopt any lawful profession, trade or business. If any agreement is made to put restriction over this right, that shall be an infringement of his fundamental right and shall also be against public policy. This is why the Indian Contract Act has specifically declared such agreements void.Every agreement by which any one is restrained from exercising a lawful profession, trade or business of any kind, is to that extent void.There are certain exceptions to the above general rule. One exception being that, one who sells the goodwill of a business may agree with the buyer to refrain from carrying in a similar business, within specified local limits, so long as the buyer, or any person deriving title to the goodwill from him, carries on a like business therein, provided that such limits appear to the Court reasonable, regard being had to the nature of the business. In India, trade has been in its infant and it is desirable to develop trade. Therefore, through the stringent provisions of Sec. 27 every agreement interfering with the right to trade has been specifically declared void. Public policy required that every citizen be allowed freedom to work for himself and should get the benefit of labour to himself or to the State. He should not enter into any agreement by which he may not be able to utilise his skill or talent for his benefit or to the benefit of his country. If he does so by an agreement, he shall not be allowed to do so.Indian law is very stringent on this point. It has invalidated many agreements on this around although they could have been allowed by the English Common Law. English Law has wavered from time to time with the changing conditions of the trade. Till some time in past it considered agreements in total restraint of trade to be valid, but in Nordenfalt V. Maxim Guns Co. It has been decided in 1894 that when restraint is reasonable, it should be allowed and the agreement be not declared void on the plea of opposed to public policy.According to Section 26 of the Indian Contract Act, all agreements in restraint of marriage except that of a minor are void. The basis of making agreements in restraint of marriage void is that marriage is a sacrament and nothing should interfere in the institution of marriage, not even contracts. The idea behind this provision is to not snatch away the personal right of every individual to marry someone of their own choice. It is important to note here that according to this section, agreements in restraint of marriage of a minor are not void.Q.X and Y ran a partnership firm which dealt with selling soaps and surf. Y wants to break away and start a new firm. Can X restrain him from doing so?a)No, as agreements in restraint of trade are void under Contract Act.b)No, as agreements in restraint of trade are against public policy.c)Yes, as such agreements in restraint of trade are reasonable.d)Both 1 and 2Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2025 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Directions:The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.Every person has a lawful right to do or adopt any lawful profession, trade or business. If any agreement is made to put restriction over this right, that shall be an infringement of his fundamental right and shall also be against public policy. This is why the Indian Contract Act has specifically declared such agreements void.Every agreement by which any one is restrained from exercising a lawful profession, trade or business of any kind, is to that extent void.There are certain exceptions to the above general rule. One exception being that, one who sells the goodwill of a business may agree with the buyer to refrain from carrying in a similar business, within specified local limits, so long as the buyer, or any person deriving title to the goodwill from him, carries on a like business therein, provided that such limits appear to the Court reasonable, regard being had to the nature of the business. In India, trade has been in its infant and it is desirable to develop trade. Therefore, through the stringent provisions of Sec. 27 every agreement interfering with the right to trade has been specifically declared void. Public policy required that every citizen be allowed freedom to work for himself and should get the benefit of labour to himself or to the State. He should not enter into any agreement by which he may not be able to utilise his skill or talent for his benefit or to the benefit of his country. If he does so by an agreement, he shall not be allowed to do so.Indian law is very stringent on this point. It has invalidated many agreements on this around although they could have been allowed by the English Common Law. English Law has wavered from time to time with the changing conditions of the trade. Till some time in past it considered agreements in total restraint of trade to be valid, but in Nordenfalt V. Maxim Guns Co. It has been decided in 1894 that when restraint is reasonable, it should be allowed and the agreement be not declared void on the plea of opposed to public policy.According to Section 26 of the Indian Contract Act, all agreements in restraint of marriage except that of a minor are void. The basis of making agreements in restraint of marriage void is that marriage is a sacrament and nothing should interfere in the institution of marriage, not even contracts. The idea behind this provision is to not snatch away the personal right of every individual to marry someone of their own choice. It is important to note here that according to this section, agreements in restraint of marriage of a minor are not void.Q.X and Y ran a partnership firm which dealt with selling soaps and surf. Y wants to break away and start a new firm. Can X restrain him from doing so?a)No, as agreements in restraint of trade are void under Contract Act.b)No, as agreements in restraint of trade are against public policy.c)Yes, as such agreements in restraint of trade are reasonable.d)Both 1 and 2Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Directions:The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.Every person has a lawful right to do or adopt any lawful profession, trade or business. If any agreement is made to put restriction over this right, that shall be an infringement of his fundamental right and shall also be against public policy. This is why the Indian Contract Act has specifically declared such agreements void.Every agreement by which any one is restrained from exercising a lawful profession, trade or business of any kind, is to that extent void.There are certain exceptions to the above general rule. One exception being that, one who sells the goodwill of a business may agree with the buyer to refrain from carrying in a similar business, within specified local limits, so long as the buyer, or any person deriving title to the goodwill from him, carries on a like business therein, provided that such limits appear to the Court reasonable, regard being had to the nature of the business. In India, trade has been in its infant and it is desirable to develop trade. Therefore, through the stringent provisions of Sec. 27 every agreement interfering with the right to trade has been specifically declared void. Public policy required that every citizen be allowed freedom to work for himself and should get the benefit of labour to himself or to the State. He should not enter into any agreement by which he may not be able to utilise his skill or talent for his benefit or to the benefit of his country. If he does so by an agreement, he shall not be allowed to do so.Indian law is very stringent on this point. It has invalidated many agreements on this around although they could have been allowed by the English Common Law. English Law has wavered from time to time with the changing conditions of the trade. Till some time in past it considered agreements in total restraint of trade to be valid, but in Nordenfalt V. Maxim Guns Co. It has been decided in 1894 that when restraint is reasonable, it should be allowed and the agreement be not declared void on the plea of opposed to public policy.According to Section 26 of the Indian Contract Act, all agreements in restraint of marriage except that of a minor are void. The basis of making agreements in restraint of marriage void is that marriage is a sacrament and nothing should interfere in the institution of marriage, not even contracts. The idea behind this provision is to not snatch away the personal right of every individual to marry someone of their own choice. It is important to note here that according to this section, agreements in restraint of marriage of a minor are not void.Q.X and Y ran a partnership firm which dealt with selling soaps and surf. Y wants to break away and start a new firm. Can X restrain him from doing so?a)No, as agreements in restraint of trade are void under Contract Act.b)No, as agreements in restraint of trade are against public policy.c)Yes, as such agreements in restraint of trade are reasonable.d)Both 1 and 2Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Directions:The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.Every person has a lawful right to do or adopt any lawful profession, trade or business. If any agreement is made to put restriction over this right, that shall be an infringement of his fundamental right and shall also be against public policy. This is why the Indian Contract Act has specifically declared such agreements void.Every agreement by which any one is restrained from exercising a lawful profession, trade or business of any kind, is to that extent void.There are certain exceptions to the above general rule. One exception being that, one who sells the goodwill of a business may agree with the buyer to refrain from carrying in a similar business, within specified local limits, so long as the buyer, or any person deriving title to the goodwill from him, carries on a like business therein, provided that such limits appear to the Court reasonable, regard being had to the nature of the business. In India, trade has been in its infant and it is desirable to develop trade. Therefore, through the stringent provisions of Sec. 27 every agreement interfering with the right to trade has been specifically declared void. Public policy required that every citizen be allowed freedom to work for himself and should get the benefit of labour to himself or to the State. He should not enter into any agreement by which he may not be able to utilise his skill or talent for his benefit or to the benefit of his country. If he does so by an agreement, he shall not be allowed to do so.Indian law is very stringent on this point. It has invalidated many agreements on this around although they could have been allowed by the English Common Law. English Law has wavered from time to time with the changing conditions of the trade. Till some time in past it considered agreements in total restraint of trade to be valid, but in Nordenfalt V. Maxim Guns Co. It has been decided in 1894 that when restraint is reasonable, it should be allowed and the agreement be not declared void on the plea of opposed to public policy.According to Section 26 of the Indian Contract Act, all agreements in restraint of marriage except that of a minor are void. The basis of making agreements in restraint of marriage void is that marriage is a sacrament and nothing should interfere in the institution of marriage, not even contracts. The idea behind this provision is to not snatch away the personal right of every individual to marry someone of their own choice. It is important to note here that according to this section, agreements in restraint of marriage of a minor are not void.Q.X and Y ran a partnership firm which dealt with selling soaps and surf. Y wants to break away and start a new firm. Can X restrain him from doing so?a)No, as agreements in restraint of trade are void under Contract Act.b)No, as agreements in restraint of trade are against public policy.c)Yes, as such agreements in restraint of trade are reasonable.d)Both 1 and 2Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Directions:The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.Every person has a lawful right to do or adopt any lawful profession, trade or business. If any agreement is made to put restriction over this right, that shall be an infringement of his fundamental right and shall also be against public policy. This is why the Indian Contract Act has specifically declared such agreements void.Every agreement by which any one is restrained from exercising a lawful profession, trade or business of any kind, is to that extent void.There are certain exceptions to the above general rule. One exception being that, one who sells the goodwill of a business may agree with the buyer to refrain from carrying in a similar business, within specified local limits, so long as the buyer, or any person deriving title to the goodwill from him, carries on a like business therein, provided that such limits appear to the Court reasonable, regard being had to the nature of the business. In India, trade has been in its infant and it is desirable to develop trade. Therefore, through the stringent provisions of Sec. 27 every agreement interfering with the right to trade has been specifically declared void. Public policy required that every citizen be allowed freedom to work for himself and should get the benefit of labour to himself or to the State. He should not enter into any agreement by which he may not be able to utilise his skill or talent for his benefit or to the benefit of his country. If he does so by an agreement, he shall not be allowed to do so.Indian law is very stringent on this point. It has invalidated many agreements on this around although they could have been allowed by the English Common Law. English Law has wavered from time to time with the changing conditions of the trade. Till some time in past it considered agreements in total restraint of trade to be valid, but in Nordenfalt V. Maxim Guns Co. It has been decided in 1894 that when restraint is reasonable, it should be allowed and the agreement be not declared void on the plea of opposed to public policy.According to Section 26 of the Indian Contract Act, all agreements in restraint of marriage except that of a minor are void. The basis of making agreements in restraint of marriage void is that marriage is a sacrament and nothing should interfere in the institution of marriage, not even contracts. The idea behind this provision is to not snatch away the personal right of every individual to marry someone of their own choice. It is important to note here that according to this section, agreements in restraint of marriage of a minor are not void.Q.X and Y ran a partnership firm which dealt with selling soaps and surf. Y wants to break away and start a new firm. Can X restrain him from doing so?a)No, as agreements in restraint of trade are void under Contract Act.b)No, as agreements in restraint of trade are against public policy.c)Yes, as such agreements in restraint of trade are reasonable.d)Both 1 and 2Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Directions:The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.Every person has a lawful right to do or adopt any lawful profession, trade or business. If any agreement is made to put restriction over this right, that shall be an infringement of his fundamental right and shall also be against public policy. This is why the Indian Contract Act has specifically declared such agreements void.Every agreement by which any one is restrained from exercising a lawful profession, trade or business of any kind, is to that extent void.There are certain exceptions to the above general rule. One exception being that, one who sells the goodwill of a business may agree with the buyer to refrain from carrying in a similar business, within specified local limits, so long as the buyer, or any person deriving title to the goodwill from him, carries on a like business therein, provided that such limits appear to the Court reasonable, regard being had to the nature of the business. In India, trade has been in its infant and it is desirable to develop trade. Therefore, through the stringent provisions of Sec. 27 every agreement interfering with the right to trade has been specifically declared void. Public policy required that every citizen be allowed freedom to work for himself and should get the benefit of labour to himself or to the State. He should not enter into any agreement by which he may not be able to utilise his skill or talent for his benefit or to the benefit of his country. If he does so by an agreement, he shall not be allowed to do so.Indian law is very stringent on this point. It has invalidated many agreements on this around although they could have been allowed by the English Common Law. English Law has wavered from time to time with the changing conditions of the trade. Till some time in past it considered agreements in total restraint of trade to be valid, but in Nordenfalt V. Maxim Guns Co. It has been decided in 1894 that when restraint is reasonable, it should be allowed and the agreement be not declared void on the plea of opposed to public policy.According to Section 26 of the Indian Contract Act, all agreements in restraint of marriage except that of a minor are void. The basis of making agreements in restraint of marriage void is that marriage is a sacrament and nothing should interfere in the institution of marriage, not even contracts. The idea behind this provision is to not snatch away the personal right of every individual to marry someone of their own choice. It is important to note here that according to this section, agreements in restraint of marriage of a minor are not void.Q.X and Y ran a partnership firm which dealt with selling soaps and surf. Y wants to break away and start a new firm. Can X restrain him from doing so?a)No, as agreements in restraint of trade are void under Contract Act.b)No, as agreements in restraint of trade are against public policy.c)Yes, as such agreements in restraint of trade are reasonable.d)Both 1 and 2Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Directions:The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.Every person has a lawful right to do or adopt any lawful profession, trade or business. If any agreement is made to put restriction over this right, that shall be an infringement of his fundamental right and shall also be against public policy. This is why the Indian Contract Act has specifically declared such agreements void.Every agreement by which any one is restrained from exercising a lawful profession, trade or business of any kind, is to that extent void.There are certain exceptions to the above general rule. One exception being that, one who sells the goodwill of a business may agree with the buyer to refrain from carrying in a similar business, within specified local limits, so long as the buyer, or any person deriving title to the goodwill from him, carries on a like business therein, provided that such limits appear to the Court reasonable, regard being had to the nature of the business. In India, trade has been in its infant and it is desirable to develop trade. Therefore, through the stringent provisions of Sec. 27 every agreement interfering with the right to trade has been specifically declared void. Public policy required that every citizen be allowed freedom to work for himself and should get the benefit of labour to himself or to the State. He should not enter into any agreement by which he may not be able to utilise his skill or talent for his benefit or to the benefit of his country. If he does so by an agreement, he shall not be allowed to do so.Indian law is very stringent on this point. It has invalidated many agreements on this around although they could have been allowed by the English Common Law. English Law has wavered from time to time with the changing conditions of the trade. Till some time in past it considered agreements in total restraint of trade to be valid, but in Nordenfalt V. Maxim Guns Co. It has been decided in 1894 that when restraint is reasonable, it should be allowed and the agreement be not declared void on the plea of opposed to public policy.According to Section 26 of the Indian Contract Act, all agreements in restraint of marriage except that of a minor are void. The basis of making agreements in restraint of marriage void is that marriage is a sacrament and nothing should interfere in the institution of marriage, not even contracts. The idea behind this provision is to not snatch away the personal right of every individual to marry someone of their own choice. It is important to note here that according to this section, agreements in restraint of marriage of a minor are not void.Q.X and Y ran a partnership firm which dealt with selling soaps and surf. Y wants to break away and start a new firm. Can X restrain him from doing so?a)No, as agreements in restraint of trade are void under Contract Act.b)No, as agreements in restraint of trade are against public policy.c)Yes, as such agreements in restraint of trade are reasonable.d)Both 1 and 2Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Directions:The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.Every person has a lawful right to do or adopt any lawful profession, trade or business. If any agreement is made to put restriction over this right, that shall be an infringement of his fundamental right and shall also be against public policy. This is why the Indian Contract Act has specifically declared such agreements void.Every agreement by which any one is restrained from exercising a lawful profession, trade or business of any kind, is to that extent void.There are certain exceptions to the above general rule. One exception being that, one who sells the goodwill of a business may agree with the buyer to refrain from carrying in a similar business, within specified local limits, so long as the buyer, or any person deriving title to the goodwill from him, carries on a like business therein, provided that such limits appear to the Court reasonable, regard being had to the nature of the business. In India, trade has been in its infant and it is desirable to develop trade. Therefore, through the stringent provisions of Sec. 27 every agreement interfering with the right to trade has been specifically declared void. Public policy required that every citizen be allowed freedom to work for himself and should get the benefit of labour to himself or to the State. He should not enter into any agreement by which he may not be able to utilise his skill or talent for his benefit or to the benefit of his country. If he does so by an agreement, he shall not be allowed to do so.Indian law is very stringent on this point. It has invalidated many agreements on this around although they could have been allowed by the English Common Law. English Law has wavered from time to time with the changing conditions of the trade. Till some time in past it considered agreements in total restraint of trade to be valid, but in Nordenfalt V. Maxim Guns Co. It has been decided in 1894 that when restraint is reasonable, it should be allowed and the agreement be not declared void on the plea of opposed to public policy.According to Section 26 of the Indian Contract Act, all agreements in restraint of marriage except that of a minor are void. The basis of making agreements in restraint of marriage void is that marriage is a sacrament and nothing should interfere in the institution of marriage, not even contracts. The idea behind this provision is to not snatch away the personal right of every individual to marry someone of their own choice. It is important to note here that according to this section, agreements in restraint of marriage of a minor are not void.Q.X and Y ran a partnership firm which dealt with selling soaps and surf. Y wants to break away and start a new firm. Can X restrain him from doing so?a)No, as agreements in restraint of trade are void under Contract Act.b)No, as agreements in restraint of trade are against public policy.c)Yes, as such agreements in restraint of trade are reasonable.d)Both 1 and 2Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Directions:The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.Every person has a lawful right to do or adopt any lawful profession, trade or business. If any agreement is made to put restriction over this right, that shall be an infringement of his fundamental right and shall also be against public policy. This is why the Indian Contract Act has specifically declared such agreements void.Every agreement by which any one is restrained from exercising a lawful profession, trade or business of any kind, is to that extent void.There are certain exceptions to the above general rule. One exception being that, one who sells the goodwill of a business may agree with the buyer to refrain from carrying in a similar business, within specified local limits, so long as the buyer, or any person deriving title to the goodwill from him, carries on a like business therein, provided that such limits appear to the Court reasonable, regard being had to the nature of the business. In India, trade has been in its infant and it is desirable to develop trade. Therefore, through the stringent provisions of Sec. 27 every agreement interfering with the right to trade has been specifically declared void. Public policy required that every citizen be allowed freedom to work for himself and should get the benefit of labour to himself or to the State. He should not enter into any agreement by which he may not be able to utilise his skill or talent for his benefit or to the benefit of his country. If he does so by an agreement, he shall not be allowed to do so.Indian law is very stringent on this point. It has invalidated many agreements on this around although they could have been allowed by the English Common Law. English Law has wavered from time to time with the changing conditions of the trade. Till some time in past it considered agreements in total restraint of trade to be valid, but in Nordenfalt V. Maxim Guns Co. It has been decided in 1894 that when restraint is reasonable, it should be allowed and the agreement be not declared void on the plea of opposed to public policy.According to Section 26 of the Indian Contract Act, all agreements in restraint of marriage except that of a minor are void. The basis of making agreements in restraint of marriage void is that marriage is a sacrament and nothing should interfere in the institution of marriage, not even contracts. The idea behind this provision is to not snatch away the personal right of every individual to marry someone of their own choice. It is important to note here that according to this section, agreements in restraint of marriage of a minor are not void.Q.X and Y ran a partnership firm which dealt with selling soaps and surf. Y wants to break away and start a new firm. Can X restrain him from doing so?a)No, as agreements in restraint of trade are void under Contract Act.b)No, as agreements in restraint of trade are against public policy.c)Yes, as such agreements in restraint of trade are reasonable.d)Both 1 and 2Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.