Simply put, a trade restriction is a legal contract between the employer and the worker that prevents the worker from operating in the same geographical area and/or within a specified period after the termination of the employment contract. The mere fact that a former employee had access to confidential information alone is not sufficient to exercise restraint. In the United States, the first major discussion in the opinion of the chief of the court (later President of the United States, then Chief of Supreme Justice) William Howard Taft in the United States against Addyston Pipe and Steel Co. Judge Taft explained the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 as a legal codification of the English doctrine of common trade restriction, as explained in the Reynolds case.  The Tribunal distinguishes between mere trade restrictions and those that result in the legitimate purpose of a legitimate contract and are reasonably necessary to achieve that objective.  An example is a non-competition clause related to the rental or sale of a bakery, as in the case of Mitchel. Such a treaty should be considered by a “rule of reason,” i.e. it should be considered legitimate if it is “necessary and incidental.” The price-fixing and supply-fixing agreements involved in the Addyston case are an example of the reserved nature of the reserve. Taft stated that “we believe that there is no question of adequacy for the courts for such a contract. The Supreme Court upheld the verdict. In the following century, Taft J.`s opinion of Addyston Pipe remained unfounded in the analysis of the agreements.  One of the related questions is whether, even if a deduction is necessary and necessary in the process, there are ways available to achieve the desired result, which is less damaging.
According to the FTC-DOJ 2000 guidelines for collaborations among competitors, the question is whether practical, much less restrictive means were reasonably available at the time the agreement was concluded.  Thus, a party may argue that the agreement is contrary to public policy, which is based on the unreasonable restrictions imposed. The worker has the opportunity to show that the restriction agreement is contrary to public policy. This is protected when the employee in question controls the employer`s customer relationship and the type of work is highly dependent on the customer relationship (Pearson/HRX Holdings Pty Ltd  FCAFC 111). See also Wallis Nominees (Computing) Pty Ltd/Pickett  VSCA 24, where it was found that a staff member`s obligations under the non-invitational provisions of a restriction clause are based on two factors: “First, an employee must be able to gain trust and trust in order to rely on a client`s business. Secondly, that the relationship between the employee and the client is such that it is possible that the employee, when he leaves the employer`s company, can manage with him the activity of the client. « ). In the law, it is the public interest that prevails, since restrictions on the trade in employment contracts are non-a priori. If the restriction of the trade clause is unreasonable, the employment agency or the labour tribunal may find that the clause cannot be applied and therefore the worker is not obliged to comply with it.