a) How does the court analyze the reasonableness of this noncompetition agreement?
b) Why does it rule that the noncompetition is invalid?
c) Since it ruled the clause to be invalid, is King free to take a job anywhere?
d) What effect would that have on King?
e) Courts tend to be antagonistic to noncompetition agreements. Why is that?
f) Suppose an employer could request any restrictions it wanted on future employment. What problems could that create?
g) But if an employee agrees to certain conditions, why shouldn't they be enforced? If a worker knowingly agrees he will never work for another employer, anywhere, in the same field, why not require him to live up to his word?
h) If a court is free to ignore a contract provision, such as a non-compete agreement, doesn't that render the contract worthless?