• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Restrictive Covenants

Extracts from this document...


Restrictive Covenants In the situation described in this problem, a restrictive covenant would be the best way to protect the company's interests. Although the implied terms of employee confidentiality regarding company information would be valid in this case, they wouldn't stop an employee working with rivals. All doubt should be removed by the inclusion of a clause in which the employee undertakes not to carry on a particular trade or profession for a period after the termination of the contract. It would permit the company to seek a interim interdict in court against Dr MGleam and Ms Wilkes preventing them from breaching the covenant. Restrictive covenants are common in many contracts (partnership, share holders, buyer-seller) including employment contracts. Prima facie, such rules are illegal and unenforceable unless the covenantee (the side who gains from the restriction) can invoke the restraint of trade doctrine which was introduced into law as a result of the famous House of Lords case of Nordenfelt v. ...read more.


are not operated in by the company. Remembering that courts will interpret 'reasonable' more narrowly for employer-employee covenants, it would be wise not to try for a world-wide restraint. This simply means that the covenant would specify that the covenantor would not work within the districts where the company has markets when the contract ends. As courts do not alter covenants and can just enforce or strike them down, it is in the firm's interest not to tread over the fuzzy distinctions of what is 'reasonable'. It must be remembered that (in theory at least) the restriction on the covenanter's employment must be the minimum necessary to protect the employer's legitimate interest. The fact that both employees have senior positions in the company is useful for the covenantee, as it makes it more likely that the covenant will be held to be reasonable due to the confidential information that they will be privy to. The covenant must be restricted to the kind of work that is being done for the company. ...read more.


(General Billposting Co. Ltd. v. Atkinson) The courts tend to interpret 'reasonable' more strictly in the relationship between employer-employee than buyer and seller. It would therefore be wise not to make the covenant too wide by including a world-wide restraint. For safety's sake, the contract could be put together in a manner which would put the three parts (duration, nature, spatial area) separately. In this fashion, if a judge were to construe the covenant as being unreasonable, one term could be 'blue penciled' without canceling the whole covenant.(Mulvein v. Murray 1908) As all sources state that it is within the rights of the company to protect their trade secrets and trade connections, it is entirely reasonable for Dr McGlean and Ms Wilkes to sign a covenant restricted their right to trade with past and present clients of the company within the districts the company operates in and for a specified period of time. Dr McGlean's covenant would specifically treat the subject of electronic engineering and Ms Wilkes' would be in terms of marketing and connections. Such terms would prevent the employees getting 'poached' by rivals and would be held as reasonable and enforceable in a court of law. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Law of Contract section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Law of Contract essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Contract Law - Offer And Acceptance

    3 star(s)

    Acceptance must be unqualified * a communication may fail to take effect as an acceptance because it attempts to vary the terms of the offer Tinn v Hoffmann & Co 1873 An offer to sell 1,200 tons of iron is not accepted by reply asking for 800 tons North West Leicestershire D.C.

  2. Four ways in which a contract may be discharged.

    An incorporated exclusion clause which appears to cover the issue at hand may be declared void or subject to the test of reasonableness. The Act primarily focuses on contracts made between consumers and a business and on occasions between two businesses.

  1. Invitation To Treat

    The cases we could quote are Williams v. Roffrey Bros, Hartley v. Ponsonby, Thomas v. Thomas, White v. Bluett etc. For the relevance of property law in the arbitrary exclusion rule, read on the case of CIN Properties Ltd v.

  2. I have been asked to advise a client on considering contracting with a building ...

    Both of these cases are shown below. Les Affreteurs V Walford 1919 "A charter of a ship provided expressly for 3% commission payment to be made on signing the charter. There was a trade custom that it should only be paid at a later stage.

  1. In advising Bennys position of the interest over the said property (the flat), it ...

    He ought to consider, whether any direct/less direct financial contributions made by him to the purchase price of "the flat". The answer is negative, because all of purchase price was totally come from Amy. 3. He did not pay for management fees and utility charges, even though he actually

  2. Undue influence in the case of Barclays Bank v. O''Brian [1994] Lord Browne-Wilkinson was ...

    and Lord Scarman in Universe Tankships (1982)), it would follow that a remedy for damages would lie in tort. See: Morgan v Fry [1968] 2 QB 710 (for the definition of the tort of intimidation) D&C Builders v Rees [1966] 2 QB 617 Universe Tankships v ITWF [1982] 2 All ER 67.

  1. What is the importance of implied terms to the contract of employment

    This duty however, does not apply to all information learnt by the employee during the course of employment. In Fowler v Faccenda Chicken Ltd20, the court held that the employee was generally allowed, when his employment ceased, to apply the skill and knowledge he had acquired, but specific trade secrets


    The producers had engaged a substitute and when she appeared they refused her services. In Bettini v Gye [1876] 1 QB 183 a singer agreed to perform from March 30 to 13 July 1875 and to attend six days beforehand for rehearsals.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work