Research concerning the doctrine of Restraint of Trade in Anglo-American Law

随着贸易条件的变化，英国有关贸易限制的法律在形式和精神上都不时发生变化。在现代法律中，所有的贸易限制，在没有特殊的正当理由的情况下，都是违反公共政策的，在这个意义上，表面上是无效的。在特殊情况下，限制性契约的正当性应参照(1)是否存在值得保护的合法利益，(2)当事人之间的合理性，以及(3)公共利益的合理性进行审查。特别是雇佣合同中的限制性契约比商业合同受到更严格的审查。值得保护的利益在雇主和雇员之间的界定比在买方和卖方之间的界定更为狭隘。因为有两个原因可以解释这种区别。第一买方和卖方可以在比雇主和雇员更平等的基础上讨价还价。第二名雇员没有支付任何补偿作为限制贸易的契约的回报。因此，要确定雇主有值得保护的利益，他必须证明雇员已经了解了雇主的商业秘密，或者他已经获得了对雇主客户的影响力。最近，雇主的利益被扩展到保护他在维持稳定、训练有素的劳动力方面的利益。

The law concerning restraint of trade in U.K.has changed from time to time, both in form and in spirit, in response to changes in conditions of trade. In modern law all restraints of trade, in the absence of special justifying circumstances, are contrary to public policy and in that sense prima facie void. Special circumstances justifying restrictive covenants is scrutinized with reference to (1) the existence of Legitimate interests meriting protection, (2) the reasonableness between parties, and (3) the reasonableness in the public interest. Especially restrictive covenants in contract of employment are more strictly scrutinized than commercial contracts. And the interests meriting protection is more narrowly defined between employer and employee than buyer and seller. Because two reasons have been given for this distinction. First buyer and seller may bargain on a more equal footing than employer and employee. Second employee is not paid any compensation in return for the covenants in restraint of trade. Thus to establish that the employer has the interests meriting protection, he must show either that the employee has learnt the employer's trade secrets, or that he has acquired influence over employer's customers. And recently the employer's interest is being extended to protect his interest in maintaining a stable, trained workforce.