The implementation of these agreements depends on the law of the State concerned. However, as a general rule, with the exception of agreements for the assignment of inventions, they are subject to an analysis identical to that of other NSNs. . However, if the worker has been induced by the employer`s competitor to breach the restrictive agreements, the employer could sue that employer (especially since the competing company probably has greater financial means to enable it to pay any damages). The application of non-competition rules in the state of Florida is quite common. Some law firms rely on these agreements and represent workers, employers and potential new employers of a worker currently subject to a non-compete clause. The agreement should not be too broad and, in general, difficult to implement if it lasts more than two years.  However, Florida courts will rarely refuse to impose a non-compete clause because of their length or geographic scope. Instead, Florida law requires courts to affix a „blue pencil“ to an inadmissiblely broad or extended non-compete clause to enforce it within Fla`s limits. Stat. § 542.335.  Even if the agreement is part of a general contract of employment, there is a possibility of prior infringement by an employer.
As a result, the non-competition clause of the Treaty becomes inapplicable. However, recent case law in the Florida courts of appeals has undermined the usefulness of the previous defense against offenses.  While restrictive agreements are most common in employment contracts, they can be included in several other types of agreements. For example, share grant agreements, severance pay agreements or shareholder agreements. This last point is remarkable. Shareholders are typically key employees with knowledge of the company`s confidential information and business plans. Non-compete rules in shareholder agreements protect all shareholders by preventing business owners from using inside information to create or join a competing company with an unfair advantage. Covenants to not compete are the most common types of restrictive agreements in employment contracts. These provisions prevent the worker from competing with the employer and/or working for a competitor of the employer for a period after the termination of the employment contract. In Virginia, a plaintiff must prove, by being overweight evidence, that the agreement is appropriate in the sense that: (1) it is no greater than is necessary to protect its legitimate business interests, such as. B a trade secret; (2) is not excessively harsh or repressive in limiting the worker`s ability to earn a living; and (3) is not contrary to public policy. Paramount Termite Control Co., Inc.
vs. Rector, 380 pp.E.2d 922, 924 (Va. 1989). Texas courts, however, will not impose any obligation not to participate in competitions if the court finds that such an agreement „is contrary to public policy and therefore unscrupulous in substance.“  The employee must not compete with the company`s office within a 15-mile radius. Finally, lawyers have been arguing for decades about the meaning of the phrase used in my fourth example („in [X] miles“). Does this mean, within 50 miles, the crossing of vehicles along the public road? See z.B. Rite-Aid of South Carolina, Inc. . .