Similarly, just because a state in general enforces these agreements does not mean that all non-competition agreements are applied. Any agreement could continue to be invalidated if a court finds that the restrictions imposed are not reasonable. Courts are often not forced to be subject to a non-competition clause when the duration of competition is too long, when the geographical scope in which the worker is prevented from working is too broad, or when the types of work bans are too broad. Probably not. Montana`s competition bans are remarkably similar to those in California and North Dakota and come from the Field Code, which was accepted by California in 1872 and Montana in 1875. See MCA 28-2-704 and 705 and California Business and Professions Code 16601-02. In all these countries, competition bans are promoted as trade restrictions. California has extended exemptions to its non-competition prohibitions to allow exemptions for non-compete bans related to the sale of all shares of a business. See California Business and Professions Code 16601. Montana followed, but made a narrower exception.
Many states try to limit the applicability of non-competition agreements because they are considered excessively severe competition restrictions. These agreements can make it almost impossible for workers to find more work after being left behind. Competition bans often prevent workers from working in the same sector as their former businesses. If they have spent their entire careers developing their know-how and skills in this sector, these workers will effectively prevent them from finding work comparable to similar wages. Following a recent Montana Supreme Court decision in a first impression case in montana, as in several other countries, an employer will not normally be allowed to impose a non-compete clause in an employment contract where the employer was solely responsible for the termination of employment. It is significant that the verdict could be different if the employee embezzled trade secrets.