A contractual obligation to be non-negotiable is null and void and unenforceable vis-à-vis the promiser because it is contrary to public policy of trade promotion, unless the restriction of trade is appropriate to protect the interests of the buyer of a company.  Trade restrictions may also occur under restrictive agreements in post-termination employment contracts. The courts also refer to the test set out in Basson v Chilwan  ZASCA 61, which asks four questions to determine the appropriateness of the restriction of the trade agreement: contact us if you want to discuss whether you can assert your reluctance towards a former employee or if your former employer tries to impose a restriction on you, that you do not consider fair or appropriate. In this particular case, Reddy v. Siemens, the court concluded that the restriction of the business agreement only prevented the employee from holding a job with a competitor of Siemens – it did not prevent the employee from being employed, but simply limited the specific employer. The court also found that the employee had access to confidential information from the employer (Siemens) and, while it is sufficient for him to have the opportunity to disclose this confidential information, it is not necessary for him to actually disclose this information. As a result, the restriction of the trade agreement was found to be valid and enforceable. Diplock LJ had explained in Petrofina (Great Britain) Ltd v Martin (2) what a restriction is in this way: as to whether the restriction was proportionate to the interests of the parties and the public, the General Court would normally take into account factors such as the duration of the restriction and the geographical scope of the clause in question. In the case of Mano Vikrant Singh v.
Cargill TSF Asia Pte Ltd (8), the High Court of Singapore held that the clause in question was inappropriate and therefore unenforceable for the following reasons. First, the clause is broader than necessary in terms of duration. The non-compete obligation limited trade only for one year, while the clause covered a period of two years. A related question is whether, even if a restriction is necessary and incidental, there are ways available to achieve the desired result that are less harmful. The FTC-DOJ`s 2000 Guidelines for Competitor Collaborations state that in determining whether a restriction is „reasonably necessary,“ the question is „whether practical and much less restrictive means were reasonably available at the time the contract was entered into.“  You can consult your state`s code of law to see how the state views restrictive agreements in non-compete clauses and other restrictive agreements. .