When these considerations favor enforcement, it is the employer s legitimate business interests and the public s interest in fair practices and freedom of contract, among other interests, that are served. Holding a covenant not to compete void frustrates the intent of the contracting parties. Although a reasonable time period or geographical area is not capable of precise calculation, the all or nothing approach of voiding a covenant, merely because time, place, or some other detail is unreasonable, is inconsistent with the freedom to contract. It also allows the courts to apply equitable principles to avoid unfair and unjust results. For Critical Analysis Public policy is general, well-settled public opinion concerning citizens duties to each other.
Public policy changes with the times, as the economy, society, and morality changes.
The public policy against the enforcement of gambling contracts is based in part on the illegality of gambling. Even in some states that do not permit gambling, a court may require a losing bettor to pay a winner if their bet was contracted in a state that permits it. In a state that sponsors a lottery, the enforceability of the state s own gambling contract is recognized through its agreement to pay lottery proceeds to the holders of winning tickets. In that state, refusing to pay the winners on the ground that it would be against public policy might itself be against public policy.