Employers have attempted to circumvent this situation by claiming that restrictive agreements apply at termination, “whatever the cause” and “legal or not.” In Scotland, such language was deemed inappropriate and could threaten the entire federal government, even if the termination was indeed legal. A 2-mile zone contract for two years after the end of the partnership in a 2-partner real estate agency was also maintained, despite the fact that this would have prevented the outgoing partner from practising throughout Christchurch, and there were 23 other real estate agents in the 2-mile zone. The fact that the worker first brought clients to the employer at the beginning of the employment does not in itself precludes the fact that a non-appeal agreement applies, when it may be a factor that may be relevant to the duration of the restriction imposed. The fact that clients no longer want to deal with the former employer is not a relevant criterion in deciding whether the restriction should be maintained or not. In general, restrictive agreements can be placed in each employment contract, but the question is whether the competent country will apply the conditions after the worker leaves. The basic test is the “relevance” of the federal state, depending on the duration, geography, nature of the industry and the potential to inhibit the former employer`s business interests. Unlike the transfer of good re-exploitation, there is generally no tacit restriction for a worker who solicits clients of a former employer. The effects of an employee`s influence on an employer`s clients can be met by an agreement that prevents the employee concerned from requesting those clients after the termination. The invitation requires more than information from the client about the employee`s departure. It requires a specific purpose and the intention to obtain orders from the client, and it should normally involve the employee who comes into contact with the client for this purpose.
If the client abandons contact, the employee may have the right to respond. The application of restrictive alliances requires restrictive considerations. In general, public order puts an end to the right of individuals to freely exercise their chosen profession. Contractual freedom is considered a fundamental right.