The basis for the delegitimization of a trade policy agreement is the historical context of the dispute between free markets and the possibility of agreements. Guaranteeing freedom of the agreement would be tantamount to legitimize agreements to restrict trade, which would lead the parties to accept control of competition. According to common law, the current position is taken from Nordenfelt v Maxim Nordenfelt Guns and Ammunition Co. Ltd. In this case, Thorsten Nordenfelt was a gun manufacturer in Sweden and England. Thorsten sold his business to an organization that, at that time, transferred the business to Maxim Nordenfelt. Then Thorsten agreed with Maxim that he would not participate in the assembly of weapons for a period of 25 years, apart from what he produces for the good of the organization. Thorsten subsequently broke his promise and said the agreement was unenforceable because it was in commercial restraint. Thorsten supported the court`s decision.
The common law is the subject of an argument test. A trade agreement to restrict trade is legitimate if: The simplest type of non-market agreement is the one that requires it to break the law. A band of thieves can agree to steal a valuable painting and share the product equally. However, if a contracting party does not obtain a fair share, it cannot bring the others to court for non-compliance with the contract, since the contract is considered legally invalid. Section 2 (d) of the Indian Contract Act of 1872 stipulates that consideration may be provided by “promisives or any other person” provided that this is done “at the request of the promisor.” In the case of Currie v. Misa, the court defined the precious consideration as “within the meaning of the law may exist in one right, interest, leniency, prejudice, loss or liability, suffered or assumed by the other.” Section 25 of the Act states that all agreements would be cancelled without consideration, unless they fall into the following categories: 5. The agreement is not included in the list of persons who have been specifically declared non-avenues by the Indian Contract Act by sections 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 56; (a) A agrees with B to magically discover treasures.