Thus, the Commission intended to restrict the scope of the section by invalidating any agreement by totally limiting marriage, while allowing a partial limitation if the restriction so agreed upon is found by the Tribunal to be reasonable in the circumstances. This would allow for several agreements that could be better for both individuals and society. Although the custom of marriage imposed only a partial restriction, which depended on the payment of a certain amount, it was found to be contrary to section 26 of the Contracts Act. “Under the Bombay presidency, people who negotiate a marriage often receive 100 to 1,000 rupees, if successful, depending on the difficulty of the case and the circumstances of the parties; and in Bengal, as you know, the Ghataks make great profits by negotiating marriage.” A limited restriction, which only limits marriage to a certain extent, has often been upheld by the courts. After the engagement and separated from her by a variable interval, comes the marriage. However, an engagement contract that a bride`s guardian has entered into with the groom is not an irrevocable contract. However, custom requires that such a revocation of the promise be made for a just reason, and a few centuries ago, such revocation would result in heavy penalties to be paid to the groom. However, section 21, section 6 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 established that the specific performance of an engagement contract could not be applied. Here, the complainant owned a fleet of buses that once ran between Pune and Mahabaleshwar. The defendant also had a similar case in the same area.
In order to avoid competition, the applicant purchased the defendant`s business together with the goodwill and contractually committed it not to open a similar store in the region for 3 years. The accused did not do so and resumed his belongings. The Tribunal decided that the agreement was valid since it fell within the exception of S.27. In this case, the parties were businessmen in Calcutta. The defendant Rajcoomar suffered a loss as a result of the applicant`s competition and entered into an agreement with the claimant that, if he closed his business there, he would pay him all the advances he had paid to his employees. Where the defendant did not pay, the applicant brought an action to recover the amount, but did not do so because it was a trade restriction which was therefore not applicable in the courts. Since then, brokerage contracts have been terminated by the courts, contrary to public order. For example, a departmental bank of the Orissa Supreme Court in Gopi Tihadi against Gokhei Panda and Another stated: “The examination or the subject matter of an agreement is lawful, unless it is expressly prohibited by law or the Court considers it immoral or contrary to public order.
Under English contract law, a contract in which the marriage is entered into against the money paid is considered illegal, as the marriage had to be a common-law union of the couple. A conjugal mediation contract is a contract of remuneration of a third person against the negotiation of a marriage and, as such, contrary to public order and cannot be enforced. “A common sense test is applied in the Common Law. An agreement to restrict trade is valid if: Despite the fact that marriage is promoted in our society, marriage is contrary to public order and unenforceable.