The delegitimization of a trade agreement is part of the history of the conflict between free markets and contractual freedom. Guaranteeing contractual freedom would be tantamount to legitimizeing trade restriction agreements, which would lead the parties to agree to limit competition. According to the common law, the current position stems from the case of Gujarat Bottling Co Ltd v. Coco Cola Co, OMP1257/2014, there was an agreement to grant the franchise by Coca Cola Co. to Gujarat Abfilco do not manufacture, sell or negotate not or are not affected by the product, beverages of other brands or brands/trades of subsistence during the duration of the agreement. It was found that the negative provision should promote trade and that the provision was limited only to the livelihoods of the agreement and not to its termination. Therefore, the provision could not be considered a restriction on trade. The doctrine of trade restraint would not then be attracted if the treaty is not entirely one-sided. Section 27 was drafted in a manner that provides absolute protection against any type of trade restriction, reasonable or not. The rigidity of language in this section does not leave much room for a broader interpretation and, as such, is at the heart of the debate on the validity of this provision. The above section has been regularly discussed by various courts in petitions to enforce similar reserve clauses.
In order to understand how the courts have managed the application of these clauses, we have reviewed subsequent court decisions. Any agreement between the two parties that prevents either party from being tried in the event of non-compliance with the contract is a non-agreement. Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act provides that any agreement that prevents an aggrieved party from entering a competent court in the event of an infringement or limits the time within which it can do so is a non-agreement. Moreover, any agreement that would expire the rights of a party or absone one of the parties from its liability would be a non-agreement. Exception 1.-Economy of the agreement not to carry out transactions whose good value is sold.- Anyone who sells the good-in of a business may agree with the buyer to refrain from carrying out a similar transaction within certain local limits, provided that the purchaser or any person who sells the value to him performs a similar transaction there, provided that such restrictions appear appropriate to the Court of Justice, provided that the nature of the transaction is over-mutable. Under Section 26 of the Indian Contract Act, all agreements restricting marriage, with the exception of a minor, are non-acute. 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.