The facts of the case Chua Chian Ya V Music & Movements (S) Pte Ltd, Chua was a local artiste who entered into a music publishing contract with the defendant Music and Movements (M&M). Under the terms of this agreement, Chua composed music during this period and M&M was responsible for promoting Chua's works and collecting royalties for Chua. M&M sent a royalty summary to Chua every six months. Chua noted that there were inconsistencies and M&M provided various explanations for how they proceed. However, Chua remained dissatisfied and sought a declaration that all rights to her compositions with M&M even after Chua had been provided to explain these inconsistencies. Complete bank statements were never provided. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay The Court held that the provision in question does not constitute a restraint of trade. There must be a difference between restrictions placed on an artist's ability to compose for a living and restrictions on the sale of an artist's compositions of interest. The Court held that he was only granted the rights to the plaintiff's compositions and did not influence him by making music for a living. Furthermore, there is also the case of Wong bark Chuan David v man Financial (S) Pte Ltd [2007] SGHC 5, the appellant, Mr Wong, was a director and managing director of the respondent company. He was asked to resign and leave office for three months starting June 13, 2005. The two parties entered into a termination agreement. If Mr Wong had not violated the terms of the agreement, he would have received benefits amounting to 13,014 shares of the Man Group joint-stock company and $263,000. However, MF refused to pay compensation to Mr Wong and claimed that he had breached the agreement which prohibited him from soliciting MF's employment and engaging with or advising a competitor. Mr Wong was found to have solicited the employment of MF employees and was advising an industrial competitor. The implication was that MF would establish the interests that were to be protected by restrictive covenants and the reasonableness of them. The question of whether Mr Wong would still be entitled to compensation given that the restrictive covenants were invalid. The claim that the Compensation had been promised in exchange simply or principally for the restrictive covenants was a fact that needed to be vindicated; the legal consequence if some of the restrictive covenants were found to be invalid was not to be asserted: in .Mr Wong would have been entitled to attempt to assert other claims on different causes of action. It was impossible to conclude that he had not been prejudiced. The court would not have exercised its discretionary jurisdiction in favor of MF for raising the issue, which it had not claimed. There was no provision in the TA which stated that compensation would not be payable if any of the agreements were found to be invalid. Furthermore, in the case of Mano Vikrant Singh v Cargill TSF Asia PteLtd[2011] SGHC 241 - [2012] 1 SLR 311, the defendant was previously employed as a senior trader by the plaintiff, Mr Mano, who was involved in trading and structured finance ( “TSF”) an activity that involved leveraging trade flows between countries to customize cross-border financing solutions called “structured solutions”. The plaintiff's role in the defendant's TSF business was that of "initiator" or "structurer" of the Structured Solutions. Plaintiff and Defendant also entered into an agreement not to compete with TSF for a period of one year following its.