The delegitimization of a trade agreement is part of the history of the conflict between free markets and contractual freedom. Guaranteeing contractual freedom would be tantamount to legitimizeing trade restriction agreements, which would lead the parties to agree to limit competition. According to the common law, the current position stems from the case of the Contracts Act- As for section 28 of the Contracts Act, there is no doubt that this section does not have enforcement agreements that extend the limitation period. Such an agreement, which extends the statute of limitations, contrary to what is provided for by the statute of limitations, would be null and void under section 23 of the Contracts Act, as it would have the effect of countering the provisions of the statute of limitations – Jawaharlal v. Mathura Prasad.  Section 3 of the Statute on Prescription makes it clear that any appeal under a statutory limitation period is rejected, while the statute of limitations is not provided for as a defence. Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act declares all agreements in trade restrictions, not entered into by tanto, with the only exception is the sale of goodwill. Nevertheless, it is important to understand that these agreements are non-abundant and not illegal. In other words, these agreements are not illegal, they are simply not enforceable in court if one of the parties does not fulfill its part of the agreement. Unlike the common law, even partial agreements to restrict trade or to appropriately limit contract law are not valid. Contracting parties cannot delegate jurisdiction to a court they do not have through private agreements, nor can they cede jurisdiction that they have under ordinary law. It was found that the principle that parties cannot delegate the jurisdiction of a jurisdiction or remove it from a jurisdiction is considered not an intrinsic jurisdictional issue in cases within the inherent jurisdiction of a court over the subject of the appeal and the question of territorial jurisdiction.
The Lowe v. case. Peers set a precedent in the Marriage Limitation Act. In this case, the accused stated that if he married someone other than the complainant, he would give him 1000 pounds within three months of his marriage. It was decided that such an agreement was a null and void. The original text of Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, which nullifies agreements (or clauses) to restrict judicial proceedings, has been amended several times over the years. Indeed, in 1997, the original Section 28 was replaced by a new one after the recommendations of the 97th report of the Indian Legal Commission were taken into account. The amendments made by the 1997 amendment caused much discontent on the part of banks and financial institutions in that the amendment prevented them from including clauses, for example in a bank guarantee (or similar agreement) that destroys the rights of a party to sue it. An attempt to resolve this problem was made in 2013, when the Bank Act (amendment law) introduced in 2012, with exception 3 in Section 28, a savings clause for a guarantee agreement of a bank or financial institution. But a look at this 2013 change, while aimed at protecting banks and financial institutions, shows that instead of solving problems, it can add conditions that should worry many banks and financial institutions.