Restraint of Trade - Watson v Prager - 16 Marker
The case involves the law on exclusive service arrangements within the ROT doctrine. A boxer being restrained from services from another manager for 3 years and another 3 years if he became a champion. It was held to be unreasonable as the added 3 years was too excessive.
The significance of this case is its recognition in the ROT doctrine despite being an exclusive service arrangement. Its significant in developing the law as it represents a change in judicial views in dealing with transactions of this type.
This is evident through judges decisions where they stated that "Later decisions have, in particular made it clear that a contract is..." (S5, L26-28). As the case fell into the doctrine, the 2 conditions laid down in Nordenfelt applied. They found the agreement wasn't in the interests of the parties or the public.
The case shows how judges recognised the nature of the relationship of the parties and where a conflict of interest exists there is a protection of the person in the weaker party and weaker bargaining strength. The courts have adopted a similar line or meaning in earlier cases such as Esso. It shows how judges have become more flexible and more fluid, following Lord Wilberforce's statement which is clear that "the categories can never be closed" (S1, L27). The courts recognised the ROT doctrine falling within the music industry as in the case of Schroeder Music v Macaulay in source 6.