In Virginia, the courts compensate for the function (1), (2) geographic scope, and (3) duration of the CNC in relation to the employer`s legitimate business interests in order to determine their suitability.  In addition, NQCs are only appropriate if they prevent the worker from competing directly with the employer and cannot include an activity in which the employer does not participate.  Generally speaking, Virginia courts will not attempt to revise or impose a narrower non-compete restriction. Therefore, a design error or unenforceable limitation may result in the global agreement not being unenforceable in Virginia.  The fundamental extension pronounced a long time ago remains valid: “An obligation not to compete is applicable only if it is necessary to protect a legitimate commercial interest, which is sufficiently limited in time and time and which is relevant to the public interest.”  The Court found that the obligation not to compete was too broad and therefore unenforceable, given that the phrase “substantially similar or related” was vague and excluded not only direct competition with Daston, but also the provision of services “related” solely to the services provided by Daston. Therefore, the obligation not to compete was broader than necessary to protect Daston`s legitimate business interest. He then analyzed parts of the EA that claimed that the seller was an employee “agreeing” with conflicting provisions defining “cause.” The judge concluded that a factual issue precluded the dismissal of the complaint. Finally, the court allowed the seller to assert rights to undue enrichment and merit, even though they were incompatible with a contractual right as “alternative” claims. The decision was a gain for the seller, while the buyer`s violation of non-competition was dismissed. A remarkable result for a non-competition dispute between the sale of companies. The decision is also another good example of how virtually any non-competition clause can be challenged on the basis of the protection of a legitimate commercial interest. (See Oberfoell, above) To Hampton v.
Koehler, No. 1. .