Quote:
|
Originally Posted by TheRiddick
Non-compete is ALWAYS signed by BOTH parties. Since Leccia had no beef with the duration of the clause when he WILLINGLY signed it I can't imagine a judge now vacating it. If he signed the agreement in bad faith, as now it seems, then he should not be complaining. Besides, if there is a 5 year non-compete he DEFINITELY got a serious chunk of money up front, thus his ability "to make a living" is a dubious claim. Look up sales of Williams-Selyem and Kosta Brown wineries, just a couple of very visible examples, much longer non-compete clauses (10 years) and all enforceable without sellers claiming "duress".
|
There are many cases of non-compete covenants being deemed unenforceable because of the unreasonable duration even though both parties signed the agreement. Most revolve around the issue of whether it unreasonably restricts the persons ability to make living. Many factors obviously come into focus on these types of cases, such as the range and scope of the restrictions, the type of work itself and whether a new venture would have a negative effect on the company if trade secrets were utilized. This is just to name a few. Not every NCC or CNC is open and shut simply for the fact that both parties signed the agreement. And seeing as how each one is different, the duration also doesn't
definitely mean Leccia got a "chunk of money" up front.
