Practice question
A senior territorial executive knows a pre-need company’s confidential marketing strategy. Her covenant restricts involvement in that industry for two years after separation but leaves other service-plan work open. She promptly takes a sales-executive position with a direct pre-need competitor. She contends that every post-employment restriction is void, so no factual inquiry is necessary. Which is best?
- Her categorical argument is correct
- The covenant is automatically criminal
- The argument fails; Tiu upheld the comparable defined restriction after considering the executive’s access and the limited scope
- The restriction would be valid even if it barred all work forever
- The executive’s access can never matter
Legal references
- Tiu v.Platinum Plans, GR163512, February28,2007: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_163512_2007.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.