Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In 1922, the Supreme Judicial Court eliminated any doubt that restrictive covenants in the employment context would be enforced when reasonable. [50] The basic proposition enunciated long ago continued to apply in the 2000s: "A covenant not to compete is enforceable only if it is necessary to protect a legitimate business interest, reasonably ...
In contract law, a non-compete clause (often NCC), restrictive covenant, or covenant not to compete (CNC), is a clause under which one party (usually an employee) agrees not to enter into or start a similar profession or trade in competition against another party (usually the employer).
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 ...
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
Restrictive covenants have a complex and sordid history. From the 1920s to the 1960s, racially restrictive covenants became a common tool to prevent racial, ethnic and religious minorities from ...
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]
Land Law (restrictive covenants on land are imposed upon subsequent purchasers if the covenant benefits neighbouring land) Agency and the assignment of contractual rights are permitted. Third-party insurance - A third party may claim under an insurance policy made for their benefit, even though that party did not pay the premiums.
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.