Non Compete Agreements In Mississippi

29 Sep Non Compete Agreements In Mississippi

The Mississippi Supreme Court “held that restrictive alliances restrict trade and individual liberty and are not favors of the law… Cain v. Cain, 967 so.2d 654 (Miss.Ct.App. 2007). Since such agreements are “not favourites”, they must be “interpreted restrictively” and the undertaking wishing to impose a non-competition clause “bears to prove that the restriction is proportionate in the light of the economic interest to be protected”. But simply designing a “short” period or a “small” geographical area of restriction for the application is misguided. The number of people working remotely with a computer and a mobile phone is increasing. Their place of employment is not as important as the employer`s place of economic interest in that job. The globalization of trade also means that competitive work could be geographically implanted everywhere. If you`re a business owner, a well-crafted non-compete clause can ensure that former employees aren`t directly competing with your business. Since many employees will be working (or creating their own) for competing companies, a non-compete clause is a must to protect, at least for a while, what you`ve worked so.

But Mississippi companies face challenges in developing non-compete rules; design too tight and their interests may not be effectively protected; Design it too broad and it will be unreasonable, unenforceable and not worth the paper on which it is written. Establishing such an agreement is often a delicate balancing act that a company must constantly monitor. Employers should keep these issues in mind when asking employees to sign restrictive agreements. It is also important to know if potential new hires have a non-compete clause with a former employer. In some cases, the new employer may be held liable to the former employer if the hiring of the worker violates the agreement. [1] See Thames v. Davis & Goulet Ins., Inc., 420 d. 2d 1041, 1043 (miss. 1982) (non-competitions are “carefully examined, carefully examined, examined with disapproval, interpreted rigorously and reluctantly”); here is the bus.

Commc`ns, Inc. v. . .