Opinion ID: 1882124
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Hardship to Gateway and the Public

Text: [¶ 54.] As noted, this agreement does not impose an undue hardship on Gateway. Gateway is free to carry on its computer business and hire any computer programmer in the entire world, so long as it does not hire a CTS programmer for the relatively short period of one year. Nor does this agreement impose an undue hardship on the public. Gateway's ability to produce computers will not be affected by its inability to hire CTS programmers for a limited period of time. [12] [¶ 55.] As stated in Lien, 73 S.D. at 93, 39 N.W.2d at 488: If the restriction imposed was not greater than protection to the covenantee required and was compatible with the public interest, it cannot be deemed a contract in restraint of trade. (Emphasis added); see also 17 C.J.S. Contracts § 238, at 1107 (1963): Public policy favors competition and opposes restraints on trade when the public welfare is injuriously affected; but before parties will be absolved from their solemn obligations on this ground, it must be shown that their agreements are manifestly injurious to the public welfare, since it is also the policy of the law to hold persons to their contracts. [¶ 56.] Not every contract is unreasonably in restraint of trade; if a contract is challenged on that basis, then whether it falls into one of the legislatively created exceptions of SDCL 53-9-9 to -11, while relevant, is not dispositive. See Lien, 73 S.D. at 92, 39 N.W.2d at 487: [Forerunner to SDCL 53-9-8] did not introduce a new principle of law, but it simply eliminates from the controversy the question of reasonableness where a case falls within one of the exceptions. If, as here, the contract is not addressed by one of the exceptions, then reasonableness is the question. Id., 39 N.W.2d at 488 (a contract will be sustained to the extent it is reasonable to the public and the parties).