Yesterday, the Supreme Court stiffened its stern treatment of non-compete agreements. At issue in Beverage Systems was a non-compete clause that allowed the trial court to modify its geographic scope if the court determined the original scope was unreasonable. The trial court, however, declined to shrink the agreement's scope--even after finding it unreasonable. The Court of Appeals reversed, noting that the parties had expressly empowered the trial court to modify the agreement. Tailoring was appropriate, the COA held, because it "makes good business sense and better protects both a seller's and purchaser's interests in the sale of a business . . . . in a rapidly changing economy."

But The Supreme Court rejected the COA's premise. Because "parties cannot contract to give a court power it does not have," the parties could not authorize the trial court to modify the agreement." Allowing litigants to assign to the court their drafting duties as parties to a contract would put the court in the role of scrivener,"the Court held. "We see nothing but mischief in allowing such a procedure."

So it seems that court-may-modify clauses in non-compete agreements are now unenforceable in North Carolina.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.