Restrictive Covenant: Types, Enforceability & Drafting

TL;DR: A restrictive covenant is a contractual provision that limits what a party can do after a relationship ends - whether that relationship is employment, a business sale, a partnership, or a commercial arrangement. The term is an umbrella covering non-competes, non-solicitation clauses, non-dealing restrictions, garden leave provisions, and similar post-termination restraints. Courts enforce restrictive covenants only when they are reasonable in scope, duration, and geographic reach, and the test for reasonableness varies significantly by jurisdiction.

‍

What Is a Restrictive Covenant?

A restrictive covenant is a contractual obligation that restricts a party from engaging in certain activities during or after the term of a contract. In business contexts, restrictive covenants most often appear in employment agreements, share purchase agreements, partnership deeds, franchise agreements, and commercial collaboration contracts.

The core function is to protect legitimate business interests: trade secrets, client relationships, workforce stability, and goodwill. A seller of a business agrees not to compete with the buyer for a defined period. An employee agrees not to solicit the employer's clients after departure. A franchisee agrees not to operate a competing outlet within a specified radius.

The enforceability of restrictive covenants depends on a balancing test. Courts weigh the covenant holder's legitimate interests against the restrained party's right to earn a livelihood and the public interest in open competition. A covenant that goes further than necessary to protect legitimate interests will be struck down or, in some jurisdictions, reformed to a reasonable scope.

‍

Why It Matters

Protection of goodwill in business sales: Without a restrictive covenant, a seller could pocket the purchase price and immediately set up a competing business, destroying the value the buyer just acquired.
Client relationship protection: Employees with close client relationships can cause serious damage if they leave and immediately contact those clients.
Trade secret defense: Restrictive covenants provide a contractual layer of protection beyond statutory trade secret law.
Workforce stability: Non-solicitation covenants prevent departing employees from poaching colleagues.
Franchise system integrity: Post-term non-competes in franchise agreements protect the franchisor's system and other franchisees from direct competition by a former insider.

‍

Key Elements of a Well-Drafted Restrictive Covenant

Clear identification of restricted activities: Specify exactly what the restrained party cannot do.
Defined duration: State the restriction period.
Geographic scope: Define the territory where the restriction applies.
Legitimate interest anchor: Identify the specific business interest being protected.
Consideration: Ensure adequate consideration supports the covenant.
Carve-outs and exceptions: Specify what is permitted.
Severability and blue-pencil language: Include a clause allowing a court to modify an overbroad covenant rather than void it entirely.
Remedies provision: Specify available remedies for breach.

‍

Market Position & Benchmarks

Where Does Your Clause Fall?

Covenant-Holder-Favorable: Broad activity restrictions, 24-month duration, worldwide geographic scope, automatic injunctive relief, non-solicitation extending to prospective clients.
Market Standard: Activity restrictions tied to actual role, 12-month duration, geographic scope matching actual business territory, mutual agreement on remedy provisions.
Restrained-Party-Favorable: Narrow activity restrictions limited to direct competition in same product line, 6-month duration, limited geographic scope, no non-dealing restriction, garden leave payment during restriction period.

Market Data

The FTC estimated in 2023 that approximately 30 million U.S. workers (roughly 18% of the workforce) were subject to non-compete agreements.
Average non-compete duration in U.S. employment agreements is 12-18 months; in M&A sale covenants, 2-3 years is standard.
Post-FTC rulemaking activity, several U.S. states have enacted additional restrictions: Minnesota, California, Oklahoma, and North Dakota effectively ban employment non-competes.
In the U.K., the government proposed in 2023 to cap non-compete clauses in employment contracts at 3 months.
Garden leave provisions appear in approximately 60% of senior executive employment agreements in the U.K. and 35% in the U.S.

Sample Language by Position

Covenant-Holder-Favorable: "During the Restricted Period, the Covenantor shall not, directly or indirectly, whether as principal, agent, partner, director, employee, consultant, investor, or otherwise, engage in, assist, or have any interest in any Competing Business anywhere in the Territory."

Market Standard: "For a period of twelve (12) months following the Termination Date, the Employee shall not, within the Restricted Area, directly solicit or accept business from any Client with whom the Employee had material dealings during the final twenty-four (24) months of employment."

Restrained-Party-Favorable: "For a period of six (6) months following termination, the Executive shall not directly compete with the Company's [specific product line] business within the [defined city/region], provided that the Company shall continue to pay the Executive's base salary during such restricted period."

‍

Example Clause Language

Non-compete in a share purchase agreement:

Seller Non-Compete: "For a period of three (3) years from Completion, the Seller shall not, and shall procure that each Seller Affiliate shall not, carry on or be engaged in any business which competes with the Business as carried on at Completion within the Territory. Nothing in this clause shall prevent the Seller from holding up to 5% of the issued share capital of any publicly listed company."

Non-solicitation in an employment agreement:

Client Non-Solicitation: "During the twelve (12) month period following the Date of Termination, the Executive shall not, directly or indirectly, solicit, divert, or appropriate, or attempt to solicit, divert, or appropriate, the business of any Protected Client for the purpose of providing Competing Services."

Non-dealing restriction (stronger than non-solicitation):

Non-Dealing: "For a period of twelve (12) months following termination, the Employee shall not deal with, or accept the custom of, any Restricted Client, whether or not such Restricted Client was solicited by the Employee."

‍

Common Contract Types

Share Purchase Agreements (M&A): Seller non-competes are standard and generally more enforceable than employment non-competes because the seller received full consideration for the sale of goodwill.
Employment Agreements: Non-competes, non-solicitation, and non-dealing restrictions for senior employees and key personnel.
Partnership and LLP Agreements: Post-departure restrictions on partners soliciting clients or joining competing firms.
Franchise Agreements: Post-term non-competes preventing former franchisees from operating competing businesses near the former franchise location.
Joint Venture Agreements: Restrictions on JV partners competing with the JV during and after its term.
Settlement Agreements: Non-compete and non-solicitation covenants included as part of dispute resolution terms.
Consultancy and Contractor Agreements: Restrictions on contractors working for competitors during and after the engagement.

‍

Negotiation Playbook

Key Drafting Notes

Tie restrictions to the actual role: A non-compete that restricts a salesperson from working anywhere in the company's industry is overbroad.
Define key terms precisely: "Competing Business," "Restricted Area," "Protected Client," and "Restricted Period" all need clear definitions.
Consider garden leave as an alternative: A garden leave clause keeps the employee on payroll but away from the business during the notice period.
Include blue-pencil or reduction language: "If any restriction is found to be unenforceable, the court may modify it to the minimum extent necessary."
Address consideration explicitly: In the U.S., some states require independent consideration beyond initial employment for a mid-employment non-compete.

Common Pitfalls

Overreach on duration: A 3-year employment non-compete is rarely enforceable.
Worldwide geographic scope without justification: Unless the business genuinely operates globally, worldwide restrictions are hard to defend.
Failing to distinguish between non-compete and non-solicitation: Courts treat them differently.
No consideration for mid-employment covenants: In states like Illinois, continued employment alone may not be sufficient consideration.
Ignoring the FTC's non-compete rule developments: While the FTC's 2024 rule banning most non-competes was stayed by courts, the regulatory direction is clear.

‍

Jurisdiction Notes

U.S.: Enforceability varies dramatically by state. California (Business and Professions Code Section 16600) voids virtually all non-competes. Texas requires ancillary agreements and a nexus to protectable interests. States like Florida (Fla. Stat. 542.335) are relatively enforcement-friendly but require reasonable scope. The FTC's April 2024 Final Rule would have banned most employment non-competes, but it was stayed by federal courts in Ryan LLC v. FTC. Several states have enacted their own restrictions, including bans on non-competes for low-wage workers.
U.K.: Restrictive covenants are prima facie void as restraints of trade but enforceable if they protect a legitimate business interest and go no further than reasonably necessary (Nordenfelt v. Maxim Nordenfelt Guns and Ammunition Co. [1894] AC 535). Courts will not rewrite an unreasonable covenant (unlike some U.S. blue-pencil states). The government has indicated possible legislation to cap post-employment non-competes at 3 months.
Other: EU member states vary widely. France requires financial compensation during the restriction period (indemnite de non-concurrence). Germany limits post-employment non-competes to 2 years and requires compensation of at least 50% of the last annual salary (HGB Sections 74-75d). Australia follows the U.K. restraint of trade doctrine with reasonableness as the key test (Nordenfelt applied in Lindner v. Murdock's Garage [1950] HCA 48).

‍

Related Clauses

Non-Compete - The most common type of restrictive covenant, prohibiting competition with the protected party.
Non-Solicitation - Restricts solicitation of clients, customers, or employees rather than prohibiting competition outright.
Non-Circumvention Clause - Prevents parties from bypassing each other to deal directly with introduced contacts.
Covenant Not to Compete (M&A) - The sale-of-business variant, which has distinct enforceability standards.
Confidentiality - Often paired with restrictive covenants to protect trade secrets and proprietary information.
Independent Contractor Clause - Restrictive covenants in contractor agreements face additional enforceability hurdles.
Termination With Cause - Termination for cause may trigger or affect the enforceability of restrictive covenants.

‍

This glossary entry is provided for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship is formed by reading this content. Consult qualified legal counsel for advice on specific contract matters.