A non-compete agreement in North Carolina must meet certain criteria before the courts apply it. As in Manpower of Guilford County., Inc. v. Hecke, these criteria are: 26. Manpower of Guilford County, Inc. Hedgecock, 42 N.C. Ca. 515, 522, 257 S.E.2d 109, 115 (Ct. 1979) (assuming that a bund, not competing with a limited period of one year within a 25-mile radius, was inappropriate, because the territorial restriction exceeds reasonable limits). Some of the factors considered by the courts in assessing the applicability of a non-competition agreement are that North Carolina law has not specifically defined the scope of acceptable time or territorial restrictions and only requires them to be “reasonable.” The relevance of a geographic restriction contained in your non-competition agreement generally depends not only on the specified size of the area, but on the location of your customers and the need for the geographic scope of the non-compete clause to maintain these customer relationships.
If your non-compete agreement is to prevent an employee from using your clients` knowledge to assist a competitor, the restricted area should only be the areas in which the employee made contacts during hiring. Therefore, when the courts check the territorial boundaries, it considers that a nugget of interest bonuses in this area is that the courts are not blue pencil competition clauses in the individual employment context. This means that a court will not rewrite an inapplicable clause to make it applicable. For example, in one of the previous scenarios, the court would not remove “any parent company, department, subsidiary, subsidiary, predecessor, consecutive successor or agent” if that clause is the only party to obstruct an otherwise applicable non-competition clause. The non-competition clause is applicable, or not, as written. In Andy-Oxy, the Confederation did not state to compete as the worker: Perhaps the recent and effective trend in competition bans is it to limit employees working with the employer`s clients. Of the six North Carolina cases identified by these “customer-based” restrictions, four have been decided since 2000.19 In addition, the only two that were not taxed had unusually long periods of five years20, while the four that were imposed had a duration of two years or less.21 We will evaluate your case and help you fight for your right to earn a living if we find out that your agreement is probably unenforceable under North Carolina law.