ligation, even if the ordinary
conditions of an enforceable contract are satisfied. A man may bet, in
private at any rate, if he likes, and pay or receive as the event may
be; but for many years the winner has had no right of action against the
loser. Unfortunate timidity on the part of the judges, who attempted to
draw distinctions instead of saying boldly that they would not entertain
actions on wagers of any kind, threw this topic into the domain of
legislation; and the laudable desire of parliament to discourage
gambling, so far as might be, without attempting impossible
prohibitions, has brought the law to a state of ludicrous complexity in
both civil and criminal jurisdiction. But what is really important under
this doctrine of public policy is the confinement of "contracts in
restraint of trade" within special limits. In the middle ages and down
to modern times there was a strong feeling--not merely an artificial
legal doctrine--against monopolies and everything tending to monopoly.
Agreements to keep up prices or not to compete were regarded as
criminal. Gradually it was found that some kind of limited security
against competition must be allowed if such transactions as the sale of
a going concern with its goodwill, or the retirement of partners from a
continuing firm, or the employment of confidential servants in matters
involving trade secrets, were to be carried on to the satisfaction of
the parties. Attempts to lay down fixed rules in these matters were made
from time to time, but they were finally discredited by the decision of
the House of Lords in the Maxim-Nordenfelt Company's case in 1894.
Contracts "in restraint of trade" will now be held valid, provided that
they are made for valuable consideration (this even if they are made by
deed), and do not go beyond what can be thought reasonable for the
protection of the interests concerned, and are not injurious to the
public. (The Indian Contract Act, passed in 1872, has unfortunately
embodied views now obsolete, and remains unamended.) All that remains of
the old rules in England is the necessity of valuable consideration,
whatever be the form of the contract, and a strong presumption--but not
an absolute rule of law--that an unqualified agreement not to carry on a
particular business is not reasonable.

Fraud.

Where there is no reason in the nature of the contract for not
enforcing it, the consent of a contracting party may still not be
binding on h