Validity of Non-Compete Clauses in Business Sales: Serious Stuff

By
Joe Kafrouni
28 Jun 2014
•
5
min read

Legitimacy

It is legitimate for a buyer of a business to protect its investment in goodwill by restraining the seller from detracting from the goodwill sold. Whilst this is clear, the formula for drafting non-compete provisions (restraints) for particular circumstances is far from it. Every case is determined on its own facts.

Balance must be struck between protecting the interests of the buyer whilst not crossing the line of being unreasonable and therefore becoming invalid.

Generally, restraints that are unlimited geographically and in time are unenforceable. However, there are examples of when unlimited time, and in some cases the seller’s lifetime, have been held reasonable. In respect of a shoe manufacturer in Melbourne, a restraint for over 100 kilometres and unlimited as to time was enforceable.  Similarly, geographical restraints taking in a whole State have been found reasonable when applied to a small business.  However, there are also examples to the contrary. One example is where a restraint for a one kilometre radius for 3 years applied to a hair dressing salon in the Sydney CBD was held to be too wide.

The Question

When involved in drafting or completing these clauses, a very important, if not the most important, question to ask the parties (particularly the buyer) is this:

To sever the seller’s relationship with the customers after settlement:

  1. what activity must be stopped?
  2. by who?
  3. for how long? and
  4. where?

A considered answer to this question(s) will normally provide sufficient guidance on the restraint provision that should be implemented. This answer should also be recorded and held on file as valuable evidence should the buyer need to enforce the restraint clause in a Court.

Restrained Party

Further, it may be the case that restraining the seller (and its directors) alone may not be sufficient. Restraints of shareholders, managers and key employees may also be appropriate.

Cascading Clauses

Another drafting technique with restraint provisions to minimise the risk of a finding that a clause is invalid for unreasonableness is to impose “severable” restraints, often cascading in nature. For example, if the buyer believes that a reasonable length of the restraint is say three (3) years, the clause could be drafted so that the definition of “restricted period” is reflected as follows:

Restricted Period means:

(a)        three (3) years from completion;

(b)        two (2) years from completion;

(c)        one (1) years from completion.

Therefore, if a Court was to find that 3 years was excessive, clause (a) would be severed leaving sub-clause (b) i.e. 2 years as the applicable restricted period. Similarly, if 2 years was also to be found invalid then that sub-clause would also be severed leaving sub-clause (c) i.e. 1 year.

Activities

What activity does the buyer seek to restrain? The buyer should consider:

  1. restraining business activities: the seller buying, selling, importing or manufacturing products competitive with products dealt with or distributed by the business sold.
  2. assisting competitors: the seller promoting or assisting any other business which competes with the business sold.
  3. soliciting customers: the seller soliciting the customers of the business sold.
  4. Interference with employees: the seller attempting to entice away the employees of the business sold.
  5. Disclosure of confidential information: keeping or revealing the confidential business and financial information of the business.

Issue with the Standard Condition

Some standard contract restraints, such as the standard Queensland Contract, the REIQ Business Sale Contract, are limited to competition over a time and place. While this may be useful when a majority of a business’s customers are based within a certain radius of the business premises (takeaway shops, grocery stores & newsagencies), it may not be when the business’s customers are spread far and wide (professional service firms, specialised retail shops & manufacturing businesses). Further, the Contract does not address other important activities that may be done whilst the seller’s new business is bases outside the “prescribed area” that impact on the goodwill of the purchased business, such as:

  1. the seller soliciting the customers of the business from outside the “restricted area”.
  2. the seller attempting to entice away the employees or contractors of the business sold.

Conclusion

If in answering the question: what is required to sever the seller’s relationship with the customers? you find that the standard business sale contract’s provision is inadequate, then the clause should be varied by special condition to accommodate what is reasonably required, but no more!

Want my view on your own situation?

Book an initial consultation

: up to two hours with me by phone for a fixed fee of $1,650 (including GST), then a short written note of my advice and next steps. If my conflict check means I can't act, I'll refund your fee in full. To check anything first, email

info@klaw.com.au

or call

(07) 3103 3199

.

Joe Kafrouni, Accredited Specialist in Business Law, Kafrouni Law

Disclaimer: This article is general information only and is not legal advice. Before acting on it, get advice on your own circumstances. To the extent the law allows, Kafrouni Law accepts no liability for any loss arising from reliance on it. This article is the copyright of Kafrouni Law.

What People Say

Joe's been our company’s lawyer from the beginning and has been instrumental in our journey as company owners and directors. When dealing with both complex and sensitive company issues, Joe is able to provide us with clearly articulated strategies that are well thought‐out and with the bigger picture in mind. He genuinely cares and is always willing to share his personal views, which are both honest and just. Joe is highly professional and knowledgeable in his field. You will definitely benefit having him on your team.

Company director and shareholder

Joe has assisted us with numerous acquisitions and mergers over the last 10 years. Joe's advice and expertise have been invaluable. Joe is always prompt and professional and answers all of our questions in detail. I can highly recommend working with Kafrouni Law and we will look forward to working with them for many years to come.

Managing director, acquisitions

Thank you, Joe. It was a pleasure working with you to resolve the matter today. In particular, I appreciated your patience to fully understand each party’s position and to bed down a final heads of agreement to conclude the resolution between the parties.

Business owner, commercial dispute

Kafrouni Lawyers assisted me to resolve my partnership and company shareholder dispute over a family cattle business and property. From the start, Joe provided practical advice and options to resolve the dispute away from the courts. His perseverance and technical skill helped unravel a complex financial structure, resolved disputed shareholder claims, and resulted in a signed settlement deed rather than litigation. Joe cared to explain the legal and financial complexities behind his step by step advice and maintained our focus on the end goal. Joe's involvement certainly improved my family's position and I recommend Joe to anyone finding themselves in similar circumstances.

Partner and shareholder, family agricultural business

The biggest lesson I have learnt from you recently, Joe, is that it pays to have a professional such as yourself on my side to deal with matters that I am unequipped to handle … so I can carry on with the task at hand of building my business! Thanks again, I’ll take pleasure in recommending your services to anyone in need.

Business owner

Joe, as you know we were in a very difficult position with our company before we engaged you as our lawyer and fortunately, even with the odds stacked heavily against us in our shareholders dispute, you managed to pull us through to victory. You are a true credit to the industry not only because of your skilled negotiating tactics but also due to your personable nature, which made us feel comfortable in such a volatile situation.

Company director, shareholder dispute

‍
‍

Book an initial consultation

An initial consultation is the best way for us to find out whether, and how, I can help. It suits business owners and directors facing a decision that matters. You get my considered view of your situation, not just a first impression.

‍

The fee is a fixed $1,650 (including GST). It covers a phone consultation of up to two hours, plus up to one hour of my time to consider the material you send me beforehand and to prepare my written note afterwards. Here is how it works:

1. When you book, you tell me briefly what the matter is about and who else is involved, so I can carry out a conflict check and confirm I’m free to act. If I can’t act for you, I’ll refund your fee in full.

2. I tell you what information and documents I’d like to see, and I consider them before we speak.

3. We talk it through by phone. I give you my initial advice, the options I see and what I’d do in your shoes.

4. Afterwards, I send you a short written note of my advice and the next steps I recommend.

‍

If I can help further, I’ll explain how. If I can’t, I’ll say so. You are under no obligation to engage me further. If your matter needs more than this, I’ll send you a proposal setting out how I can help and an estimate of my fees. No further work starts until you accept it.

‍

I keep only a limited number of consultation times. If none suits you, or you’d like to check anything before booking, email info@klaw.com.au and I’ll do my best to accommodate you.

Skip to main content