Restrictive Covenants In the situation described in this problem, a restrictive covenant would be the best way to protect the company's interests. Although implied employee confidentiality terms regarding company information would be valid in this case, they would not prevent an employee from working with competitors. Any doubt should be removed by the inclusion of a clause in which the employee undertakes not to practice a particular trade or profession for a period following the termination of the contract. This would allow the company to seek an interim interdict against Dr MGleam and Ms Wilkes to prevent them from breaching the clause. Restrictive covenants are common in many contracts (corporate, shareholders, buyer-seller), including employment contracts. On their face, such rules are illegal and unenforceable unless the signatory to the covenant (those who benefit from the restriction) can invoke the restriction of commerce doctrine which was introduced into law following the famous case of Nordenfelt v. Maxim Nordenfelt of the House of Lords. the alliance is justified, the signatory must show three things. That the alliance is necessary to protect a legitimate interest of the signatory of the alliance (this is not sufficient to avoid future competition with the covenant). The restriction provided in the agreement must be reasonable between the parties and must be in the public interest. It is interesting to note that few cases where an undertaking is considered reasonable have been considered contrary to the public interest. These three criteria are not yes/no questions and, therefore, courts will consider the practical effects of a compromise. of paper ......a) separately. This way, if a judge were to interpret the clauses as unreasonable, a term could be "blue penciled" without striking down the entire clause. (Mulvein v. Murray 1908). trade secrets and business dealings, it is entirely reasonable for Dr. McGlean and Ms. Wilkes to sign an agreement limiting their right to trade with the company's past and present customers in the districts in which the company operates and for a period specified time. Dr. McGlean's deal would specifically deal with the subject of electronic engineering and Ms. Wilkes's deal would focus on marketing and connections. Such terms would prevent employees from being "poached" by competitors and would be considered reasonable and enforceable in a court of law...