A judge retains discretion in deciding whether a non-competitive agreement is valid or not. However, the agreement can be confirmed in court if it is appropriate in its scope and duration and if it strikes a balance between the interests of both parties. Some non-competitive agreements can be difficult to implement. However, they must comply with existing national legislation and the restrictions must adequately protect the interests of the company without preventing fair competition. Competition bans are trade restrictions. Trade restrictions are illegal unless they are appropriate and serve a legitimate commercial purpose. The “legitimate commercial interest” test used in many jurisdictions is based on the traditional framework of the rule of reason for cartels and abuse of dominance. Restricting trade to eliminate normal competition is not a legitimate business objective. Any detention that has no legitimate purpose is illegal. And the basis of this illegality is antitrust legislation. In a well-reasoned opinion, Berg J.
set the standard that these business agreements should be evaluated in the application for enforcement. In the fight for the application of the special provision before the court, Justice Berg conducted a thorough and comprehensive review of the history of law in Michigan, beginning with a decision of the Michigan Supreme Court of 1873. Deference is inherently illegal when there is no redemptive and pro-competitive advantage. No one can express a plausible remote justification for the “competitive” advantages of low-wage competitions. Let us take a private security company that pays $11 an hour, is very tired and forces all its security guards to sign non-competition bans. Let`s take a blind plant that pays $10 an hour and requires all workers at the plant to sign non-compete contracts. Let`s take a cleaning company that pays $9 an hour, requires all janitors to sign a non-compete agreement. Where is the competitive justification? There is no such as that. These people are doing work.
These are not trade secrets and there is certainly no unavoidable disclosure. These workers are not commercial or commercial development.