There are two exceptions to section 28, as set out in the act. Agreements limiting legal proceedings are valid if: another type of restriction could have been imposed by allowing marriage only after the person has started earning a living. This would ensure that the person is able to assume responsibility for a family when marriage is contracted, therefore reducing the burden on the parents of the parties and on society as a whole. English law will advise against agreements that restrict marriage, as they are indigenous to population growth and the moral well-being of citizens. As early as 1768, a precedent was set by the Court of King`s Bench in Lowe v. Peers, where the accused had made a sealed promise not to marry anyone other than the promise she paid him £1,000 within three months of marrying someone else. What made you look for the reluctance of marriage? Please let us know where you read or heard it (including the quote, if possible). Section 27 of the Act refers only to one exception that favours the restriction of trade, that is, the sale of business property or corporations. Another exception is the Partnership Act. There are certain conditions that validate a restriction on negotiation during the sale of goods: the Law Commission has examined the Indian Contracts Act of 1872 at length and has proposed several amendments by attaching a bill as an annex to the Commission`s report, in which it proposes the replacement of several sections, including section 26 of the Act. desiring to amend the Agreements Act to restrict marriage. In India, contractual relations between two or more parties are mainly governed by the Indian Contracts Act 1872, passed by the British imperial government, which at that time exercised control of the country. Section 26 of the Indian Contract Act 1872 provides that any convention to restrict marriage, except those restricting the marriage of minors, is null and void.
In this case, the parties were businessmen in Calcutta. The defendant Rajcoomar suffered a loss as a result of the applicant`s competition and entered into an agreement with the applicant that, if he closed his business there, he would pay him all the advances he had paid to his workers. . . .