One of the oldest public policies developed by the courts is the common law prohibition on restricting trade. From the very beginning of industrialism, the courts have examined the so-called competitors who have expressed their readiness to set prices or not to sell them in each other`s territories. Since 1890, with the passage of the Sherman Act, the Trade Restriction Act has been absorbed by federal and regional cartel laws. But the common law prohibition still exists. Although today it is almost exclusively a promise not to compete with the sale of companies and employment contracts, it can happen in other environments. For example, George`s promise to Arthur never to sell the land Arthur sold to him was non-avenue because it inconsistently limited trade in the country. Cope v Rowlands (1836) 2 M – W 149 A law requires that persons acting as stockbrokers must obtain a licence or expire $25. The applicant conducted brokerage transactions for the defendant without a licence. In the absence of an express prohibition, the brokerage contract was tacitly declared illegal because the purpose of the licences was to protect the public. The main argument of the applicants, rejected by both the following hearing and the appeltor courts, is that these contracts, or at least some of them, are unacceptable and therefore unenforceable.
[In its opinion, the first instance stated:] The United States has very different opportunities to deal with contracts that involve non-competition prohibitions. Greig v Insole  1 WLR 302 A case that resulted from the cricket packer affair, when Packer established a rival group of teams to play international cricket and put players in the mix. It was found that Cricket`s governing bodies had a legitimate interest in administering the game to justify the imposition of appropriate restrictions on players. However, it was also found that the prohibitions in question, which prevented players who had joined the packers` organization from playing test and county cricket, were too broad. In this case, however, it should be noted that there was no contract between the governing body and the players.