Introduction The contract of employment is the cornerstone of the relationship between employer and employee. In that regard, the contract’s purpose can be seen in expressing the duties and the obligation of the employee and the employer during the employment. Contract clauses, concerned with post-employment restrictions, are generally utilized to protect the rights of the employer. The case of Michael Spanner, an employee at Speedyfix Garages, is revolved around his duties during the period of his 10 years employment as well as the actions that he intends to do upon the termination of his employment. The key legal issues that can be identified in his case are related to the expressed and implied duty of fidelity during employment and several restrictive covenants expressed or implied in Spanners contract, which are non-competition, non-solicitation, non-dealing and non-poaching. This paper will analyse the aforementioned case, providing a preliminary legal advice regarding Michael Spanner’s expressed and implied duties and the potential issues that might arise post his termination of employment. Analysis of Legal Issues The first issue is related to Spanner’s duty of fidelity. The duty of fidelity implies that the employee must “at all times show good faith in their dealings with the employer and on the employer’s behalf” (Pitt, 2008). There are several aspects related to the duty of fidelity, among which the duty expressed in Spanner’s contract stated that the employee “shall not without the full and informed consent of the employer, undertake any other form of paid employment whatsoever”. There are two instances that can be related to a breach of the duty of fidelity and good faith. The first instance is related to Spanner taking pad work unbeknown to Speedyfix during his employment time. The second instance is taking orders in his spare time, outside of Speedyfix garages. The issue to consider is whether the expressed term, “during the continuation of employment”, and the actions of Spanner are related to the contract clause. Accordingly, the expressed duties are related to accounting for secret profit, and the implied terms of not competing with the employer, where the employee is setting himself to act in his spare-time, something which might inflict harm to the employer. The second legal aspect can be related to the clauses in the contract that deal with the employees’ obligation after the termination of the contract. The first issue is related the expressed terms setting a non-dealing restraint, where the clause prevent Spanner for twelve months to accept or conduct business with any person, firm, company or organisation who or which at any time during the preceding five years dealt with or was a customer of Speedyfix. Another expressed terms set non-poaching constraints, in which the employee shall not solicit a colleague to join the employee in a new venture. The legal issue will be in deciding the reasonableness of the expressed restrictions, as no implied restraints of trade are taken to employer’s benefit at court (Holland and Burnett, 2008). Other legal issue are implied, and which were not stated expressed in the contract as they are also related to the duty of fidelity during employment. The intention of Spanner to solicit Speedyfix customers and employees to lea