The First Circuit upheld the district court`s decision and rejected all of Muskat`s arguments. He concluded that the District Court`s application of the “strong evidence” rule, which had not been replaced by case law or law, was appropriate and required Muskat to demonstrate, through solid evidence, that the parties intended to set off payments for something other than what was stated at the time of entering into the contract. Since the parties to the transaction had implemented a written instrument explicitly granting money for a non-compete clause, the Strong Proof rule applied to this situation. In order to protect their proprietary information, companies often ask potential employees to sign non-compete agreements that prevent them from working for competitors for a certain period of time and sometimes in a given geographic area. However, these applications are usually only made after an extension of a job offer. Or you just hired a new employee. She “forgot” to tell you about the non-competition she had signed. They are invited to check by the head of their department. They are asked, “Can we ignore it?” You know, the answer is no. The question is: how serious is the situation? But what if the doctor (a) decides on the competition in violation of his non-competition agreement, but (b) does not want to pay the redemption? In other words, what if the doctor`s attitude toward his former employer “Yes, I violate my non-compete clause — like many others in Texas all the time. If you want to sue me to try to impose it, you will go wild. But I won`t pay to buy any. The District Court agreed that the competition bans were legally unenforceable because they did not include a reasonable purchase price.
The court also granted the doctors additional legal fees. . Также нам известны кейсы, когда заказчик нарушал соглашение, что приводило к длительным судебным спорам. . .