Topic sentence - legal conclusion for the duration element

2. Rule

3. Rule explanation

4. Analysis - application of law to fact

5. Concluding sentence - legal conclusion for the duration element

Carlton cannot enforce the duration provision of the Agreement Not-to-Compete between Carlton and Watson because the restraining period - twenty-five years after termination of employment - is unreasonably long. In Maryland, an Agreement Not-to-Compete is not enforceable when the duration of the restraint extends for an unreasonably long time. See Budget Rent A Car of Wash., Inc., 268 Md. 478 (1973). This means that the duration clause of a Covenant-Not-to-Compete can be enforced only when the duration of the restraint is for a reasonable length of time. See Budget Rent A Car of Wash., 268 Md. 478. In the Watson-Carlton Agreement, the duration clause would restrain Watson from performing hair-care activities for twenty-five years after termination of her employment with Carlton - in other words through the year 2048. Given that twenty-five years could be tantamount to the length of Watson's entire career, the agreement would have the effect of precluding Watson from earning her living by using the hair-care skills that she possesses. Therefore, any agreement that would prevent Watson from doing hair-care work for twenty-five years after terminating her employment with Carlton is unreasonable and this provision of the Agreement Not-to-Compete is unenforceable.

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

1 The duration provision in the Agreement NottoCompete between Carlton and Watson is unenforceable b... View the full answer