Notes 3-08-07 - H ADM 385 03/08/2007 Nike v. McCarthy cont....

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: H ADM 385 03/08/2007 Nike v. McCarthy cont. 1) Whos employer? 2) Whos the former employee? 3) Where did the former employee go? Must answer all 3 of those questions. Even if the covenant not to compete is not void under section 653.295 , it is a contract in restraint of trade that must meet three requirements under Oregon common [**20] law to be enforceable: (1) it must be reasonably restricted in its operation in respect to both time and place; (2) it must be on some good consideration; and (3) it must be reasonable, that is, it should afford only a fair protection to the interests of the party in whose favor it is made, and must not be so large in its operation as to interfere with the interests of the public. Anywhere where you have a non-compete in excess of 3 years is almost always unenforceable....
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 04/17/2008 for the course HADM 3385 taught by Professor Wagner during the Spring '07 term at Cornell University (Engineering School).

Page1 / 3

Notes 3-08-07 - H ADM 385 03/08/2007 Nike v. McCarthy cont....

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online