The courts have maintained non-competition clauses as long as the clause contains appropriate restrictions on geographic area, the nature of what the work considers „competitive“ and the period during which a party is not allowed to appear. In Georgia, the geographic area is generally limited to the areas in which the employer or company operates during the term of the contract (with the self-employed worker or contractor) and for a specified period after the end of the contract. O.C.G.A. 13-8-53. Georgia`s restrictive contract status also provides that activities, products or services that are competitive may include all activities, products or services „performed, approved, offered or provided [by the worker] within two years of termination.“ O.C.G.A. 13-8-53 (c) (1). As a general rule, 2 years or less is considered a reasonable period of time to prevent an employee from competing after leaving the company. See id. Government laws on restrictive alliances are different.

California`s laws on such restrictive alliances are the most restrictive. The state asserts that such agreements generally cannot be brought to justice and enforced, except in cases where they are used to protect trade secrets. Delivery contracts – when entering into an essential delivery agreement, the buyer may ask the supplier not to deal with one of its competitors. Thank you for reading the Tribunal`s guide to non-invitation agreements. To boost your financial training, the following CFI resources can be useful. Unlike competition, non-invitation clauses are not required to contain a geographic area or apply only to certain types of products or services. In addition, non-demand does not prevent a former employee from working for a competitor, as a non-compete clause would. For example, a former employee who has accepted a non-solicitation plan for a client could work for a competitor or start his own competing business, unless the worker tries to recruit clients from his former employer, with whom the worker was in contact during his previous employment. The court refused to comply with the clause because it covered all customers and aspects of Phoenix`s business. As a result, the clause was found to be too broad to be reasonable and could not be applied.

The clause could probably have been applied if the company had omitted the „forward-looking“ portion that would in fact have expanded its customer base to not only real customers, but also to people who might become customers in the future. For example, in the phoenix Restorations Limited v. Brownlee 2010 BCSC 1749, Phoenix sued a court injunction to enforce a non-invitation clause. Sellers, personal service employees and brokers have a difficult situation when they leave a business.