Solus Agreement India

Viscount HALDANE LC indicated that the ability to advertise is a natural gift and is not due to specific training from the employer. If they had merely asked him not to attach himself to paintings in the field in which he had actually contributed to the construction of the goodwill of their enterprise or in a field limited to places where the knowledge he had acquired in his employment could clearly have been used to their detriment, they would have obtained the right to detain him within those borders. On the other hand, to Fitch v. Dewes, the House of Lords allowed an alliance by which a lawyer was recycled by practice within 7 miles of the city, which was reasonably necessary to protect the interests of both parties. But under no circumstances would the court allow covenants against competitions. At Attwood v. Lamont, the employer, ran several departments related to sewing, etc. And the employee was just the superintendent of sewing. The deal with him was that after he stopped being an employee, he wouldn`t commit in 10 miles to one of the employer-run businesses in addition to sewing. The Court of Appeal found that the agreement was not only abnormally broad, but also competitive. . . .

Posted in Uncategorized