If a company required a subcontractor it worked with to agree not to do business with any of its clients that it introduced it to unless it paid a fee, the subcontractor would likely claim the agreement was void:
A) as a contract in restraint of trade
B) as an unconscionable contract
C) as a contract with a public servant
D) as an exculpatory agreement
E) none of the other choices

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The agreement would likely be seen as a contract in restraint of trade, which is generally considered illegal because it limits a person or business's ability to conduct their trade or profession. Such agreements are seen as anti-competitive and harmful to free market principles.

If a Company Required a Subcontractor It Worked with to Agree