A restraint of trade clause in a commercial agreement that severely harms third parties who are not parties to the agreement and who received no benefit from the restraint is likely to be held unreasonable, particularly where the party seeking to enforce the restraint has alternative means of protecting its interests. Statements by a third party to contracting parties questioning whether it is in their interests to remain in a contractual relationship, and pointing out advantages of leaving, do not without more constitute the intentional creation of an inducing cause for breach of contract.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 16 later cases that cite this judgment.