Abstract
Did the district court err in finding the shareholder agreements, containing partially restrictive covenants not to compete, unenforceable because they lacked an essential term, were “agreements to agree,” and were unconscionable contracts of adhesion? If the district court did err— and the shareholder agreements are enforceable—are the partially restrictive covenants not to compete reasonable under Dobbins, DeGuire & Tucher, P.C. v. Rutherford, MacDonald and Olson, and can the employer show a legitimate business interest in enforcing the covenants under Wrigg v. Junkermier, Clark, Campanella, Stevens, P.C.?
This case is noteworthy because Montana law is unsettled on the issue of whether an employer has a legitimate business interest in enforcing a restrictive covenant when the employee chooses to end the employment relationship. If the Court reaches that issue, this case could guide attorneys in drafting enforceable partially restrictive covenants not to compete.
Recommended Citation
Victoria Dettman, Oral Argument Preview, Precap: Junkermier, Clark, Campanella, Stevens, P.C. v. Alborn, Uithoven, Riekenberg, P.C., 77 Mont. L. Rev. Online 87, https://scholarship.law.umt.edu/mlr_online/vol77/iss1/12.
