In recent times, these „non-competitors“ have received negative press decisions and increasingly negative court decisions. Indiana may be ahead of the curve, as it has long had a tolerant but fresh relationship with these contracts. And late last year, our Supreme Court fired a company after declaring its non-compete bans unenforceable. In particular, the State Supreme Court ruled that the agreement was not applicable. On the one hand, it prohibited the employee from interviewing any employee who provides any type of work at all levels of the first company. They are probably office cleaners, truck drivers, etc. According to the Tribunal, its scope is too broad. All the company could do now was write better competition bans in the future. The new law creates more questions than it answers. Perhaps the most obvious issue is the calculation of the „reasonable price“ of the non-competitive buyback option.
The lack of guidelines to assess the value of this buyback option will become a matter of debate and dispute. Preservation of business/customer relationships: businesses thrive on their customers or users. A non-compete agreement can be used to protect a company`s relationship with its customers. Former employees may be prohibited from removing customers from a company when they leave the company. Former employees may also be prohibited from recruiting clients and trying to induce them to leave their current business. Indiana dishes have also decided that „good will,“ developed with customers, is a protected interest. The Court also considered public policy concerns that a complete restriction of physician practice in a geographic area could undermine the relationship between physician and patient and interfere with a patient`s legitimate interest in choosing his or her physician. It stated that preventing doctors from entering into non-competition bans was a political issue that would be better left to the state legislator. The applicants first argued that the absence of the agreement to geographically describe the restricted area had cancelled it. The Court found, however, that Indiana law „only requires that the territorial scope of the restrictive employment pact be appropriate and not explicitly formulated.“ The Court also found that the territorial scope of the Confederation could be proved by extrinsic evidence for the parts of the country attributed to Kolbe.