It is advisable to ensure that the trade clause is clear and applicable with respect to the period during which it will be applied, the period during which it will be applied and the capacity during which the person is retained so that the court can impose the restriction of the trade agreement. Fortunately for employers, the position of our law has changed. Trade restrictions are a legal doctrine relating to the applicability of contractual restrictions on freedom of enterprise. It is a forerunner of modern competition law. In an earlier case of Mitchel v Reynolds (1711), Lord Smith stated LC:[1] Although the restriction of commercial doctrine is still valid, the current use has been limited by modern and economic competition law laws in most countries. It remains of considerable importance in the United States, as is the case of Mitchel v Reynolds. The courts also refer to the basson/Chilwan test [1993] ZASCA 61, which raises four questions to determine the appropriateness of the restriction of the trade agreement: it is the right of an entrepreneur in a free country to regulate, at his sole discretion and in all cases not contrary to the law, his own mode of transmission. If the law has regulated or restricted the way in which it is done, the law must be followed. But no lack of power before the general law should limit his freedom of appreciation. Courts find it inappropriate to restrict trade agreements in cases where their application is too vague or too broad. In Hi-Tech Recruitment (Pty) Limited, among others against Nel and Another, the Tribunal stated that “the restriction will be inappropriate if the duration and extent of the area to be imposed are outside the agreement itself and/or if the restriction is broader than necessary.” As far as commercial ties are concerned, this is only relevant if the employee has a close working relationship with customers, so that he or she may take them away if he leaves the company. Relevant factors in this regard: what are the restrictions on trade agreements? An agreement that seeks to restrict the right of a party to practise a profession or with persons who are suitable for people is a restriction of trade. By preventing Reddy from holding a job at Ericsson, the court found that the reluctance was to prevent a person with knowledge of confidential technologies because of his or her employment from using it to the detriment of the employer: similarly, workers should ensure that they understand the extent and content of the restriction of the trade agreement they enter into, since it is up to the worker to prove its unreasonableness and therefore its irreducible character.