(a) 'A', a Madras based doctor, employed another doctor 'B' as an assistant for a period of three years on a salary of Rs. 100,000 per month. The agreement between 'A' and 'B' provided that after…

---

(a) Validity of the Employment Agreement and Claim for Damages

(i) Validity of the Employment Agreement

The agreement between A (employer) and B (employee) includes a restrictive covenant (non-compete clause) prohibiting B from practicing medicine within 1 km of A’s dispensary for 1 year after termination. To determine its validity, we analyze under Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (applicable in Nepal for contract law principles):

1. Reasonableness of the Restriction

   • The restriction must be reasonable in time, area, and scope to protect the employer’s legitimate business interests.
   • Time (1 year): Generally acceptable for medical professionals to prevent poaching of clients.
   • Area (1 km radius): Reasonable for a local dispensary (not excessive like a city-wide ban).
   • Scope (preventing direct competition): Valid if A’s business would suffer due to B’s proximity.

2. Protection of Legitimate Business Interest

   • A has a goodwill tied to his dispensary location.
   • B, as an assistant, had access to A’s patient base and trade secrets.
   • The restriction prevents B from unfairly exploiting his prior association with A.

3. Not Unreasonably Restrictive of Trade

   • The clause does not impose an absolute ban on B’s profession (only location-specific).
   • Rs. 200,000 as liquidated damages is a reasonable pre-estimate of A’s potential loss (not penal in nature).

Conclusion: The restrictive covenant is valid under Section 27 because: ✅ It is reasonable in duration and scope. ✅ It protects A’s legitimate business interest (goodwill, client base). ✅ It does not impose an unfair or absolute restriction on B’s profession.

---

(ii) Validity of the Damage Claim (Rs. 200,000)

The agreement specifies that if B violates the restrictive covenant, he must pay Rs. 200,000 as damages. This is a liquidated damages clause (not a penalty). Its validity is determined under Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872:

1. Liquidated Damages vs. Penalty

   • Liquidated damages = genuine pre-estimate of loss (enforceable).
   • Penalty = excessive amount to coerce performance (unenforceable).
   • Here, Rs. 200,000 appears reasonable because:
     • B’s proximity would directly compete with A’s dispensary.
     • A’s loss could include loss of patients, revenue, and goodwill.
     • The amount is not disproportionate to the anticipated harm.

2. Enforceability

   • Courts in Nepal (following Indian contract law principles) uphold liquidated damages if:
     • The loss is difficult to quantify in advance.
     • The amount is reasonable and not punitive.
   • Since B’s breach (practicing next door) directly harms A’s business, the claim is valid.

Conclusion: The damage claim of Rs. 200,000 is valid because: ✅ It is a genuine pre-estimate of loss (not a penalty). ✅ The breach caused foreseeable harm to A’s business. ✅ The amount is reasonable under Section 74.

---

(b) Kajol vs. Ajay: Breach of Contract and Remedies

(i) Nature of the Breach

Kajol (singer) and Ajay (theater manager) entered a contract for personal services (performance contract). The key terms:

• Duration: 2 months (8 performances).
• Payment: Rs. 15,000 per performance.
• Breach: Kajol wilfully absents herself after the 6th performance, leaving 2 performances unfulfilled.

Nature of Breach:

1. Anticipatory Breach (Partial)

   • Kajol did not complete the agreed performances, constituting a breach of condition (not a warranty).
   • Since the contract was for a series of performances, each missed show is a separate breach.

2. Material Breach

   • The breach is material because:
     • Ajay cannot replace Kajol at short notice (she is a unique performer).
     • The entire purpose of the contract (live performances) is frustrated.
     • Ajay suffers direct financial loss (no performance = no revenue).

3. Not a Minor Breach

   • Even if Kajol had minor excuses (e.g., illness), wilful absence makes it a serious breach.

Conclusion: The breach is a material and anticipatory breach of condition, entitling Ajay to terminate the contract and claim remedies.

---

(ii) Remedies Available to Ajay

Under Nepali Contract Law (based on Indian Contract Act, 1872), Ajay has the following remedies:

Most Suitable Remedies:

1. Terminate the Contract (since Kajol has repudiated the agreement).
2. Claim Damages for Rs. 30,000 (loss from 2 missed performances).
3. Refuse to Pay for Remaining Performances (Rs. 30,000 deduction).

Additional Consideration:

• If Ajay cannot find a replacement, he may also claim loss of business reputation (if proven).
• If Kajol breached without valid reason, Ajay may also seek compensation for mental distress (if applicable under Nepali civil law).

---