affect ... by ...

maolin95

New Member
Chinese
I encountered a problem when trying to read the following part of a statue law:

Section 4 of the Restraints of Trade Act 1976 (NSW) (“the Act”) provides as follows:
(1) A restraint of trade is valid to the extent to which it is not against public policy, whether it is in severable terms or not.
(2) Subsection (1) does not affect the invalidity of a restraint of trade by reason of any matter other than public policy.

No problem in the first one, but in subsection (2), does it mean that subsection (1) will not affect the invalidity of a restraint of trade by using the means other than public policy, or subsection (1) does not affect the invalidity of a restraint of trade, and the invalidity of which is caused by the reason of any matter other than public policy?

Thanks for the help.
 
Last edited:
  • Cagey

    post mod (English Only / Latin)
    English - US
    Hello maolin95.

    Welcome to the forum. :)

    Section 1 tells us that restraint of trade cannot be valid if it is against public policy.
    Section 2 tells us that section 1 doesn't mean that any restraint of trade that doesn't go against public policy is valid. A restraint of trade might be invalid for other reasons.

    (I believe I am agreeing with your second explanation, but I'm not certain. :) )

    Added: Where did you see this? We ask you to name the source of any quotation.
     

    maolin95

    New Member
    Chinese
    Hi Cagey,

    Thanks for the help. This is quoted from a NSW supreme court's decision regarding the case called OAMPS Insurance Brokers Ltd -v- Peter Hanna [2010] NSWSC 781 concerning the statue law the Restraints of Trade Act 1976 (NSW) in New South Wales, Australia.
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top