Mitchl V Reynolds Case Study

At early common law, restrictions on future employment were illegal.
The economy of 15th and 16th century was greatly dependent on the apprenticeship whereby guilds provided the craftsmen with workers and workers with a career path.
Guilds consisted of three basic groups: These were the masters, the journeymen, and the apprentices. Only masters and journeymen were allowed to be members of the guild.
A master and the journeyman would enter into a contract whereby the master provided training in exchange for low wage labour generally for 7 years. Further, the apprentice graduated to become a journeyman. The masters often attempted to enforce non-competition to prevent the graduated journeyman from competing against him in his community and attempted to enforce

Reynolds,1711+

LANDMARK DECISION IN THE HISTORY OF LAW RESTRAINT OF TRADE: MITCHEL V. REYNOLDS

In the history of law of restraint of trade, the case Mitchel V. Reynolds has been a landmark decision.
Mitchel V. Reynolds is a very famous case and is a landmark decision in the history of the law of restraint of trade. This case has generally been cited in support of the principle that reasonable restraints of trade are permissible and enforceable and are not a basis for civil or criminal liability. The apparent shift began from here.

The Court restated that restraints on trade were illegal, but recognized that partial restraints on trade under certain circumstances might be enforceable. The partial restraint on trade made it to American shores sometime later, but seems to be spreading by mid-19th century.

By the first half of the nineteenth century there were courts that supported and were inclined towards the early common law’s refusal to enforce “reasonableness” considerations for restraints on trade while on the other hand cases began to articulate “reasonableness” consideration for restraints on