As an example of an appropriate consideration for incompetentness, Sharp cites a case in which a worker was asked to sign a non-compete agreement as a condition of maintaining employment. No additional money was paid. Two weeks after the signing, the employee was dismissed. Under the agreement, the employee cannot work in the field for two years. Was the compensation appropriate? Sharp argues that this was not the case. The case is still ongoing. Most non-competition agreements include the job offer. In exchange for the employer who hires the employee, the employee accepts the terms of the non-competition clause. The non-competitive provision may be included in an employment contract or it may be a separate document signed at the beginning of the employment. But one way or another, the agreement will probably say that competition is a condition of the job offer.
This raises concerns as to whether workers – particularly in low-skilled occupations – actually have real bargaining power at the time of hiring, but in most cases a non-competition clause, signed as a precondition for initial employment, is supported by an appropriate consideration. Assuming that the employer concludes that he or she is aggrieved and is worth it, the next step will generally be for the employer`s lawyer to send a letter of omission to the former employee and possibly to his or her new employer. The letter tells the former employee that he is in breach of the rules of non-competition and requires the violation to be repressed. As a general rule, this means either the resignation of the job, which is contrary to the non-competitive or non-competitive activity of the former employee`s new activity, which is in competition with the former employer. To stick to our previous example, a technology company would probably have a legitimate interest in protecting its latest innovations. It would be unfair to allow a worker to take a job in a competing company or to start a new business using technology developed by the former employer to combat it. The idea is that if the former employer invests in the research and development needed to develop a new product, it should be the one that benefits from bringing the new product to market – not a competitor who hires his former employee. The logic is similar to patent law. If companies do not know that they will reap the financial benefits of new innovations, they will have less incentive to innovate.  www.treasury.gov/resource-center/economic-policy/Documents/UST%20Non-competes%20Report.pdf Sharp also states that the Uniform Trade Secrets Act covers the privacy of competitions, even in the absence of a signed document.
The law states that the secrets of a company – the things that a company strives to support (for example. B technological developments, internal financial data and customer lists) – should not be disclosed by any employee. In other words, the economic benefits of trade secrets benefit the employer, whether or not the employee has signed a non-compete clause. Non-compete clauses are contracts that, like any other contract, are governed by the usual rules of contract construction. Such a rule is the notion of reflection. It is thought that a treaty, in order to be applicable, cannot be unilateral – it must include some kind of exchange. Both parties must provide something or give up something. With regard to non-competition agreements, this means that the worker must have received – at least in theory – something valuable for the agreement to be a valid legal contract, supported by counterparties. A gardening holiday contract is akin to a non-competition clause, but provides compensation for the former worker during the period during which competition is restricted. Thus, as in the case of a non-compete clause, the ex-employee is not in competition with the employer, but with a gardening holiday contract, the former employee is seen by the former employer to avoid competition.