Non-competition vs. non-demand – Any businessman should know the difference request is just a chic word to ask for something. In the commercial sense, it is defined in the attempt to get someone to do something. A non-invitation agreement attempts to obtain a person`s promise not to divert employees or customers from a business. Customer lists also guarantee protection in many companies. They are more “protective” when the employee has access to a complete list and the client list is kept secret. The limitation of competition and non-tender agreements determines whether the contract should be applied in court. A non-compete agreement prevents a former employee from confronting a former employer for a certain period of time. For example, if the worker had worked in a pharmaceutical company, a non-compete agreement would prevent him from working in the pharmaceutical industry.
Often, these agreements are limited to a specific geographic area. There are limited situations where a reasonable non-competition agreement may be valid in California. Canadian courts will apply competition and non-appeal agreements, but the agreement must be limited, in time, scope and geographic scope, to what is reasonably necessary to protect the company`s property rights, such as confidential business information or customer relations and the scope of the agreement must be clearly defined. Shafron v. KRG Insurance Brokers (Western) Inc. 2009 CSC 6 of the Supreme Court of Canada found that a non-competition agreement was inconclusive because the term “Metropolitan City of Vancouver” was not definitively defined.  Under section 27 of the Contract Act of 1872, any agreement that prevents a person from carrying out a legitimate professional, commercial or commercial activity is null and void.  However, Pakistani courts have in the past made decisions in favour of such restrictive covenants, as the restrictions are “reasonable”.
 The definition of “appropriate” depends on the time, geographic location and designation of the worker. In the case of Exide Pakistan Limited vs. Abdul Wadood, 2008 CLD 1258 (Karachi), the High Court of Sindh found that the adequacy of the clause would vary from case to case and depended primarily on the length and extent of geographic territory A leading court decision that discusses the conflict between California law and the laws of other states is the Application Group decision of 1998. , Inc. v. Hunter Group, Inc. In Hunter, a Maryland company required its Maryland-based employee to accept a one-year non-compete agreement. The contract stipulated that it must be regulated and interpreted in accordance with Maryland law.