The general principles in India and England with regard to unincluded agreements are more or less the same, which in fact means that all restrictions on trade, whether partial or total, are nullified. The only difference is that in England the decision on the validity of the restriction is taken on the basis of adequacy, whereas in India the restrictions would only be valid if they fall within the category of legal or judicial exceptions already mentioned. So there are no big differences between the two laws. English law tends to be more flexible, as the ”adequacy” clause helps to permanently change its scope. As LORD WILBERFORCE stated in Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v. Harper`s Garage (Stourport) Ltd, ”the classification (of trade-limiting agreements) must remain fluid and the categories can never be closed.” A second category of impossibility concerns contracts that are valid at the beginning, but are then cancelled due to an act or event that is not under the control of the parties. Such an impossibility is qualified as an impossibility of supervenance. Such an impossibility also has the consequence of the annulment of a treaty. Article 2 of P.56 spoke of such an impossibility.
The Common Law of England defines a person`s responsibility to honour his or her promise without any qualification. If the parties consider that the performance of the contract could be impeded in order to limit their commitment or qualify the agreement, they may impose such conditions as they deem appropriate. But a condition does not always need to be expressed in words. The conditions to be fulfilled for the effective performance of the contract also apply. If an event is beyond the control of the contracting parties and the performance of the contract is made impossible by this event, the parties are relieved of the performance of their obligations. A contract is cancelled on the principle of the impossibility of supervening if one of the following positions has been established through no fault of the promiser: after a thorough analysis of all the sections referring to the agreements not concluded, it can be inferred that the Indian Contracts Act has attempted to prohibit contracts that are contrary to public policy, either immoral or directly to those prescribed by the Indian Constitution. Violation of fundamental rights. The Tribunal decided that the agreement was void and stated that the restriction mentioned in the section does not always mean absolute deference, but also implies a partial limitation limited to one place. . . .