preview

Mich. Comp. Act : An Outline Of The Antitrust Reform Act

Better Essays
foundation Michigan has adopted the Antitrust Reform Act. Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 445.774a. The Act allows employers to obtain agreements , protecting their reasonable competitive business interests by prohibiting employment with competitors. Id. But the agreement must be reasonable “as to its duration, geographical area, and the type of employment or line of business.”Id. To be reasonable, a restrictive covenant must “‘protect against the employee’s gaining some unfair advantage in competition with the employer, but not prohibit the employee from using general knowledge or skill.’” Coates v. Bastian Brothers, Inc, 276 Mich. App. 498, 741 N.W.2d 539 (2007) If the agreement is found to be unreasonable, a court may “limit the agreement to…show more content…
The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan held that Whirlpool’s non-compete provision “extends far beyond Whirlpools’s “reasonable competitive business interests.””Whirlpool Corp v. Burns, 457 F. Supp. 2d 806 (W.D. Mich. 2006) Whirlpool did not shown that its claim is enforceable, as it pertains to Burns. Id. The court reasoned this way because there was no evidence that “Burns has disclosed or is likely to disclose any information subject to the confidentiality provision.” Id. Additionally, there is no evidence that the salesman had obtained credible information that would help his employment at Electrolux. Id. Whirlpool had not shown that it faced a real threat of “irreparable harm if not granted injunction.” Id. However Burns could be substantially harmed because he would not be able to find employment using the general knowledge he gained in the past years in home appliances, potentially causing him financial burden. Id. Therefore the court found enforcement of the non-compete covenant unreasonable. application In this case, Tiger Fly Fishing’s non-compete agreement does not extend beyond their reasonable competitive business interests. Unlike Whirlpool Corp v Burns, There is evidence that Max Verlander has disclosed or is likely to disclose any information subject to the agreement because Montana Fly Company is reasonably competitive with Tiger. Verlander sells “all kinds of” fly
    Get Access