All Of The Following Agreements Represent An Unreasonable Restraint Of Trade Except

[19] In Living Design (Home Improvements) Ltd v Davidson (“Living Design”) [25], the agreement was reached to settle the period following termination “regardless of the date of its creation and its right or not”. The Court of Session decided that the clause was manifestly totally inappropriate and that it could not be saved by severance pay. The separation of the “blue pencil” was only allowed if what is painted is trivial or technical[26] which was very doubtful in this case. A different approach was taken in PR Consultants Scotland Ltd/Mann (unlike PR Consultants). [27] The Pact referred only to the “termination of his employment relationship under this agreement (whatever the cause)”,[28] without specific reference to legality. The Court of Session denied that the sentence made the alliance unreasonable. Lord Caplan singled out Living Design on the basis of its specific reference and felt that the phrase “whatever the cause” was not able to record illegal dismissals, but only the many possibilities of legal termination. In this case, he said, “it would not be appropriate to oppose a dismissal caused by unlawful conduct of the employer,” because “the application of the principle of reciprocal contractual provisions would not allow the employer to make the restrictive agreement available to the employer.” [29] (b) The Land Government and any legal authority under the jurisdiction of the Land Government may be represented by the legal adviser of the Land concerned, the Public Prosecutor or one of the federal prosecutors authorised by them. California does not allow any non-compete clauses in contracts…

Posted in Uncategorized