Restrictive Covenants In the situation described in this problem, a restrictive covenant would be the best way to protect the company's interests. While implied terms of employee confidentiality regarding company information would apply in this case, they would not prevent the employee from working with rivals. Any doubts should be dispelled by inserting a clause in which the worker undertakes not to practice a certain activity or profession for a period following the termination of the contract. This would allow the company to apply for an interim court interdict against Dr MGleam and Ms Wilkes preventing them from breaching the covenant. Restrictive covenants are common in many contracts (corporate, shareholder, buyer-seller), including employment contracts. Prima facie, such rules are illegal and unenforceable unless the covenantee (the party gaining from the restriction) can invoke the limitation of trade doctrine which was introduced into the law following the famous House of Lords case of Nordenfelt v Maxim Nordenfelt. To prove that the covenant is justified, the covenant must show three things. That the covenant is necessary to protect a legitimate interest in the covenant (it is not sufficient to avoid future competition with the covenant). The limitation of the agreement must be reasonable between the parties and must be in the public interest. Interestingly, few cases where a deal is deemed reasonable have been found to be against the public interest. These three criteria are not yes/no questions and therefore the courts will examine the practical effects of a co...... of paper ......a)separately. That way, if a judge were to interpret the covenants as unconscionable, a term could be “blue-printed” without voiding the entire covenant. (Mulvein v. Murray 1908) Since all sources state that it is within the company's rights to protect its trade secrets and business connections, it is entirely reasonable for Dr. McGlean and Mrs. Wilkes to sign an agreement limiting their right to trade with past and present customers of the company within the districts in which the company operates and for a specific period of time. Dr. McGlean's deal would deal specifically with the topic of electrical engineering, while Ms. Wilkes' deal would deal with it in terms of marketing and connections. Such terms would prevent employees from being “stolen” by rivals and would be deemed reasonable and enforceable in court..