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

随着贸易条件的变化，英国关于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，在没有特殊正当理由的情况下，所有对贸易的限制都是违反公共政策的，在这种意义上，表面上是无效的。审查限制性公约的特殊情况时，会参考(1)是否存在值得保护的合法利益，(2)各方之间的合理性，以及(3)公共利益的合理性。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。而值得保护的利益在雇主和雇员之间的定义比买方和卖方之间的定义更狭隘。因为这一区别有两个原因。首先，买卖双方可以在比雇主和雇员更平等的基础上讨价还价。第二，作为对贸易限制的契约的回报，雇员得不到任何补偿。因此，要确定雇主拥有值得保护的利益，他必须证明雇员已了解雇主的商业秘密，或已对雇主的客户产生影响。最近，雇主的利益正在扩大，以保护他在维持稳定的、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.