...it is given, and not so large as to interfere With the interests of the public. Whatever restraint U larger than the necessary protection of the party...oppressive, it is, in the eye of the law, unreasonable." The combination iu.question Is contrary to public policy, and strikes at the interests of those of the...

...restraint is larger than the necessary protection of the party can be of no benefit to either, and can only be oppressive, and If oppressive It Is In the eye of the law unreasonable." Thus in Junes?. Leas, 1 H. & N. 189, a patentee of Improvements In stubbing machine! bound the defendant...

...the public. Whatever restraint is larger than the necessary protection of the party requires can be no benefit to either ; it can only be oppressive, and, if oppressive, it is in the eyes of the law unreasonable. Whatever is injurious to the interests of the public is void on the ground...

...interest of the party in favor of whom it is given, and not so large as to interfere with the interest of the public. Whatever restraint is larger than the...oppressive, it is, in the eye of the law, unreasonable. Whatever is injurious to the interest of the public, is void, on the ground of public policy." If,...

...ECLR) 20; Benwell r. Inns, 24 LJ (Ch.) 663. (y) 7 Bing. (20 ECLR) 735. 16 201 SMITH'S LAW OF CONTRACTS. party can be of no benefit to either; it can only...oppressive, it is in the eye of the law unreasonable. Whatever is injurious to the interests of the public, is void, on the grounds of public policy. In...

...interest of the party in favour of whom it is given, and not so large as to interfere with the interest of the public. Whatever restraint is larger than the...oppressive, it is in the eye of the law unreasonable (per Tindal, CJ, in Homer v. Graves, 7 Bing. 744). (2) In Mallan v. May (sup.), the defendant, in consideration...

...favor it is given, and not so large as to interfere with the interests of the public. A restraint which is larger than the necessary protection of the party...oppressive, it is, in the eye of the law, unreasonable. Therefore the law holds that whatever is injurious to the interests of the public is void on the grounds...

...applied was asserted by Chief Justice Tyndall in Horner v. Graves, 7 Bing. 735, to be this : "To consider whether the restraint Is such only as to afford a...oppressive. It is, in the eye of the law, unreasonable and void, on the ground of public policy as being injurious to the Interests of the public." In Navigation...

...test of reasonableness was stated by Tindall, CJ, to be "whether the restraint is such only as could afford a fair protection to the interests of the party...oppressive, and, if oppressive, it is in the eye of the law unreasonable."12 But there is a clear distinction between contracts in restraint of trade as known...

...the protection of the party in favour of whom it is made. " Whatever restraint," it has been said, " is larger than the necessary protection of the party,...only be oppressive; and, if oppressive, it is in the eyes of the law unreasonable " (n). Agreements not to carry on business of perfumer and hair merchant...