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

Heading: Extent of Restraint

Text: [¶ 51.] Gateway argues that the restraint is greater than required to protect CTS because the agreement encompasses every CTS employee and therefore, it claims, unlawfully interferes with [their] rights to choose their employment. However, the employees of CTS are not parties to this contract. [N]o case has been cited in which a person not a party to the contract at issue has been successful in asserting [the restraint of trade statute] as a bar to the validity of the contract. [That statute] and the cases decided under it indicate that it applies only to a situation where there is a direct restraint imposed on a party to the contract preventing him from exercising a lawful profession, trade, or business. Dyson Conveyor Maintenance, Inc. v. Young & Vann Supply Co., 529 So.2d 212, 216 (Ala. 1988) (Torbert, C.J., dissenting). [11] [¶ 52.] Gateway also argues that the restraint is greater than required to protect CTS since the agreement provides no territorial restriction. But see Ward v. Midcom, Inc., 1998 SD 10, ¶ 14, 575 N.W.2d 233, 238 (limiting a noncompete agreement to Codington County and stating, [t]he provisions of such contracts should be construed in the light of the surrounding circumstances, and... the intent of the parties should be carried out, if such intent is one which the law sanctions.) (citation omitted). [¶ 53.] I submit that this agreement could be limited to those places where CTS provides programming services to Gateway and to those employees in contact with Gateway, but this agreement is not against public policy and it is not unreasonably in restraint of trade.