Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Mere competition will not amount to a legitimate business interest. [28] The UK's regulator, the Competition and Markets Authority, advises that non-compete clauses are a form of employer collusion and are a form of a business cartel. [29] Restrictions are normally limited in duration, geographical area (an "area covenant"), [30] and content. [31]
A contractual undertaking not to trade is void and unenforceable against the promisor as contrary to the public policy of promoting trade, unless the restraint of trade is reasonable to protect the interest of the purchaser of a business. [2] Restraints of trade can also appear in post-termination restrictive covenants in employment contracts.
Non-solicitation agreement provisions—alongside the non-compete clause (NCC) and the non-disclosure agreement (NDA)—constitute one of three restrictive covenants frequently found within a business contract. They may be entered into with both employees and independent contractors—in addition to multiple entities—as part of a larger ...
A covenant, in its most general sense and historical sense, is a solemn promise to engage in or refrain from a specified action.Under historical English common law, a covenant was distinguished from an ordinary contract by the presence of a seal. [1]
Davidson Bros., Inc. v. D. Katz & Sons, Inc., 643 A.2d 642 (App. Div. 1994), was a case decided by the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey that first applied public policy considerations instead of the touch and concern doctrine when deciding the validity of a restrictive covenant.
Blockbusting was a business practice in the United States in which real estate agents and building developers convinced residents in a particular area to sell their property at below-market prices. This was achieved by fearmongering the homeowners, telling them that racial minorities would soon be moving into their neighborhoods.
Revlon, Inc. v. MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings, Inc., 506 A.2d 173 (Del. 1986), [1] was a landmark decision of the Delaware Supreme Court on hostile takeovers. The Court declared that, in certain limited circumstances indicating that the "sale" or "break-up" of the company is inevitable, the fiduciary obligation of the directors of a target corporation are narrowed significantly, the singular ...
Lindley LJ expressed his opinion that the doctrine “that the only test by which to determine the validity or invalidity of a covenant in restraint of trade given for valuable consideration was its reasonableness for the protection of the trade or business of the covenantee” was “the doctrine to which the modern authorities have been ...