A provision in a contract for the sale and purchase of a business reads as follows: "The vendor (Jones) shall not, directly or indirectly, in any capacity whatsoever, carry on a similar business in any location for one year." Six months later, Kates (the buyer) found that Jones was competing directly by opening up a similar business, contrary to the contract drafted by Kates. Kates sued Jones for breach of contract, namely, breach of the restrictive covenant. Which of the following best describes the legal position of the parties?
◦ Such provisions are always void, being an illegal restraint of trade.
◦ This provision is in restraint of trade and causes the whole contract to be void.
◦ Although this provision would be void, the remainder of the contract for the sale of the business would be enforceable.
◦ Agreements such as these are always binding, being the result of a free bargain between the parties.
◦ Although this type of provision is illegal, this particular one would be enforceable because it is reasonable between the parties and not contrary to public policy.
A hapless Taft is entangled in governmental yarn, while a disapproving Roosevelt looks on. “Goodness
Sample purchase order form.
Business Math, 10th Edition
Business mathematics
International Business Management
Business Mathematics in Canada, 11e (Jerome, Worswick)