Hank Jackson is a lawyer for Shutts and Bowen LLP. He regularly represents businesses and individuals in a large number of commercial disputes. He has extensive experience in the non-competition process resulting from the sale of a business and labor relations. Finally, the law of non-competition of the party in power allows the collection of legal fees of the other party. Therefore, if the court enforces your non-competition agreement, you should be able to obtain legal fees from the employee who violated it. Given the general adequacy, there are a number of factors that affect the applicability of a non-compete clause in Florida. Competition/non-tender agreements, which are invoked against a former employee, representative or independent contractor, are considered appropriate if the duration of six months or less, and inappropriate if more than two years in the long term. Similarly, a non-compete agreement with a former dealer, distributor, franchisee or licensee is deemed appropriate when it is limited to one year or less and is unreasonable if it exceeds three years. With respect to the competition prohibitions that must be put in place for the sale of a business, competitiveness is considered appropriate if it lasts three years or less and is unreasonable if it lasts more than seven years. Agreements without delay based on the protection of trade secrets are considered reasonable, unreasonable and unreasonable if it exceeds ten years. In Florida, if a non-compete clause is unreasonable, the agreement will still be applicable, but the court could reduce the time or the area in which it applies. The same requirements for a Florida non-compete clause apply to the application of non-invitation agreements in Florida. In Austin v.
Mid State Fire Equip., 727 So. 2d 1097, 1098 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), the Tribunal found that a non-invitation provision was so appropriate to prevent the former employee from recruiting clients of the former employer and disclosing confidential business information. Similarly, at Milner v. Tassy, the court found that a non-formal notice clause was appropriate because it was limited to a two-year period and only prohibited the recruitment of clients of the former employer, including potential clients with whom former employees were dealing or on whom former employees received confidential information about their relationship with the former employer.