Unlike other legal systems that follow the general rule that the review is important only to determine whether it exists and not whether it is appropriate, Illinois will verify the adequacy of the consideration.  The majority of courts will need service employment for at least two years to support a non-competition agreement (or any other type of restrictive pact). However, in some cases where a worker is particularly severe, the courts have demanded less. Non-competition agreements are applied in Illinois where the agreement is an ancillary relationship with a valid relationship (employment, sale of a business, etc.) and (1) must not be greater than what is necessary to protect the legitimate business interest of the employer (2), to which the worker must not impose undue severity and (3) cannot harm the public.  Although reasonable restrictions in the space and time of the non-competition agreement are not expressly imposed by law, they tend to be seen as a measure of the extent of the non-competition obligation greater than what is necessary to protect the legitimate commercial interest of the employer.  The applicability of non-compete agreements in the State of Florida is quite common. Some law firms develop their law firms around these agreements and represent the workers, employers and potential new employers of a worker currently bound by a non-compete agreement. The agreement should not be too broad and is generally difficult to implement if it takes more than two years.  However, Florida courts rarely refuse to impose a non-competition clause because of its length or geographic scope. Instead, courts are required, under Florida law, to enter into a broad or long-term unauthorized non-compete agreement with « blue pencil » to do so under Fla. Stat.  Even if the agreement is part of a general employment contract, there is a possibility of prior infringement on the part of an employer. As a result, the non-competition clause of the treaty will no longer apply.
However, recent appels court jurisprudence in Florida has eroded the usefulness of the previous injury defence.  A leading court decision that discusses the dispute between California law and the laws of other states is the 1998 decision of Application Group, Inc. v. Hunter Group, Inc. to Hunter, a Maryland company that required its Maryland employee to accept a one-year non-competition agreement. The contract stipulated that it must be regulated and interpreted in accordance with Maryland law. A Maryland employee then went to work for a competitor in California. When the new California employer sued in the California State Court to have the Confederacy invalidated from not competing, the California court agreed and ruled that the California non-compete clause was invalid and unenforceable. Section 16600 of the Business and Professions Act reflects a « strong public policy of the State of California » and the state has a strong interest in enforcing its law and protecting its businesses so that they can hire employees of their choice. California law therefore applies to non-California workers looking for work in California.
[Citation required] The extent to which non-competition obligations are authorized by law varies by jurisdiction. For example, in the United States, the State of California invalidates non-competition prohibitions for all shareholders, except shareholders, when selling commercial interests.  Probably not.