In this case, two owners of similar businesses agreed, in partnership, that only one of their plants would operate at a time and that the profits would be shared between them. This reluctance was considered valid. In this regard, it should be noted, however, that a violation of section 26 of the Indian Contract Act of 1872 was not invoked in this case before the Apex Court, since there is a partial limitation of marriage under the service contract. The Commission considered the Indian Contract Act of 1872 at length and proposed several amendments by attaching a bill appended to the Commission`s report, in which it proposed the replacement of several sections, including section 26 of the Act, thereby making an amendment to the Marriage Restriction Arrangements Act. Section 27 of the Act mentions only one exception that favours the restriction of trade, that is: the sale of exploitable property or goodwill. Another exception is the Partnership Act. Therefore, an engagement contract is neither a restriction of marriage nor an opposition to public order in Tulshiram v. Roopchand, in which a party had deviated from the engagement contract and then claimed that such a contract was inconclusive. However, in the event that the court has awarded compensation, the complainant is for the amount already spent pending marriage, for the resulting psychological torture and lack of social esteem. For example, in today`s world, higher education often extends well beyond the age of majority. If the Commission`s proposal has been respected, a parent can conclude an agreement with his or her child not to marry until they have completed their studies. This would contribute not only to obtaining comprehensive training, but also to the possibility of entering into marriages at a later stage where the parties would be more mature and the chances of a stable marriage would increase.
Lowe v. Peers set a precedent in the Marriage Limitation Act. In this case, the defendant argued that if he married someone other than the plaintiff, he would give her £1,000 within three months of her marriage. Such an agreement is inconclusive. Since then, brokerage contracts have been terminated by the courts, contrary to public order. For example, a departmental bank of the Orissa Supreme Court in Gopi Tihadi against Gokhei Panda and Another stated: « The examination or the subject matter of an agreement is lawful, unless it is expressly prohibited by law or the Court considers it immoral or contrary to public order. Under English contract law, a contract in which the marriage is entered into against the money paid is considered illegal, as the marriage had to be a common-law union of the couple. A conjugal mediation contract is a contract of remuneration of a third person against the negotiation of a marriage and, as such, contrary to public order and cannot be enforced. « English law will advise against agreements that restrict marriage, as they are indigenous to population growth and the moral well-being of citizens. .