Commercial news vlog - November 2019: An unreasonable restraint of trade, An employee’s right to compensation for inventions and Barclays pays $6m to end US SEC's foreign bribery claim

Commercial news vlog - November 2019: An unreasonable restraint of trade, An employee’s right to compensation for inventions and Barclays pays $6m to end US SEC's foreign bribery claim

In association with Iain Larkins from Radius Law, we bring you updates across Corporate & Commercial, Data Security, Employment, Consumer and Competition law.

We focus on thecommercial aspects and look at thepractical steps for you to consider.

This month, we cover thefollowing...

Corporate & Commercial

An unreasonable restraint of trade

It’s established law that any contract that restricts another party’s freedom to trade must be limited to what’s reasonable.

The Court has ruled in a recent case that a sports management contract that tied a racing driver in for 18 years whilst allowing themanagement company a one-month exit at any-time and that effectively excluded any other meaningful input into thedevelopment of his career – was not reasonable and was therefore an unlawful restraint of trade.  The argument that it was thenorm in theindustry did not persuade theCourt – thefact that others have signed unreasonable contracts did not make this one reasonable. 

See News Analysis: When will a commercial contract amount to an unreasonable restraint of trade? (CJ Motorsport Consulting Ltd v Bird and another)

When can a party claim negotiating damages?

It can be difficult to value a claim that relates to thebreach of a restriction.  One solution is to value theclaim by thehypothetical additional value that would have been payable for thecontract without therestriction.  This is known as ‘negotiating damages’.   In a recent case concerning thesale of a ship on thecondition that thebuyer would only use it for scrap metal, theseller claimed ‘negotiating damages’ when thebuyer breached that condition.  The Court allowed an injunction to stop further breaches but refused ‘negotiating damages’ for thepast breaches and, instead, only awarded nominal compensation. The Court said that negotiating damages will only be available where there has been a breach of contract and that breach results in

Subscription Form

Related Articles:
Latest Articles:

Already a subscriber? Login
RELX (UK) Limited, trading as LexisNexis, and our LexisNexis Legal & Professional group companies will contact you to confirm your email address. You can manage your communication preferences via our Preference Centre. You can learn more about how we handle your personal data and your rights by reviewing our  Privacy Policy.

Access this article and thousands of others like it free by subscribing to our blog.

Read full article

Already a subscriber? Login

About the author:

Louisa leads marketing for the in-house legal community at LexisNexis. She joined the dedicated in-house team at LexisNexis four years ago and has a passion for driving and facilitating initiatives which are customer-focused at their heart. Her vision is to support in-house counsel succeed in their fast-evolving role based on deep insight, data analysis and best practice gathered across the in-house community.

Prior to her in-house focused role, Louisa led the marketing for the bar and mid-market private practice sectors as well as product marketing lead for LexisPSL – LexisNexis’ cloud based, practical guidance and legal research software solution.

She brings 20 years’ marketing experience both client and agency side, specialising in B2B marketing in the Legal, TMT (Telco, Media and Technology) and Financial Services industries. In both South Africa, Europe and the UK.

Louisa is also an active member on the LexisNexis Gender Equality Matters (GEM) steering committee and is involved with the Families at LexisNexis Group which brings together, supports and lobbies for change those with an interest in balancing the challenges of work and family.