Whether applicable Even if illegal Because of the serious consequences and the overall scope of the doctrine, California courts, based on the facts, have developed exceptions to the doctrine of illegality. For example, as long as the party seeking its performance is less morally guilty than the party against whom the contract is invoked and there is no overriding public interest in serving by the cancellation of the contract and the parties are not in pari delicto, the illegal contract may be enforced. ( McIntosh v. Mills, 121 Cal.App.4th 333, 347 (2004). A contract may also be enforced if (1) the violation of the law does not have serious moral turpitude; (2) the opposing party would be unduly enriched if enforcement were refused; and (3) the forfeiture would be disproportionate to the extent of the illegality. (See Lewis & Queen v. N.M. Ball Sons 48 Cal.2d 141, 153 (1957), Tri-Q v. Sta-Hi Corp.
63 C.2d 199, 219 (1965); Asdourian v. Ajar 38 C.3d 276, 292, 293 (1985)). The courts have also found that illegality is not a defense for parties who are not members of the group in which the law should protect. ( Henry v. General Forming Ltd. (1948) 33 Cal.2d 223; R.M. Sherman Co. v. W.R. Thomason (1987) 191 C.A.3d 559). This is both the employer`s ownership interest and the extent of the withholding. Certainly, an employer has a significant competitive interest in ensuring that company information does not come out with former employees.
Nevertheless, a promise by a worker not to compete with his former employer is carefully considered by the courts and an injunction that ordered a person not to do what he should not do. (an order that a person has ordered to do what they should not do) is taken with caution, in part because the potential employee is usually faced with a contract of adhesionA contract submitted to the bidder to leave or leave without negotiation. (take or leave) and is in a weak bargaining position in relation to the employer, and in part because an injunction could result in the worker becoming unemployed. Many courts are not enthusiastic about work bans. The California Business and Professions Code provides that “any contract that prevents a person from engaging in any legal profession, trade, or activity of any kind is invalid on this scale.” California Business and Professions Code, Section 16600. As a result of the law and to promote entrepreneurial robustness, California courts generally interpret the law broadly and refuse to impose competition bans. Other countries are less stingy and employers have tried to avoid restrictions on state decisions without enforcement by providing that their employment contracts are interpreted in accordance with the law of a state where non-competition clauses are considered positive. The reason for this is that the required service, i.e. the sale of a deck of cards, is not illegal (as long as it is not prohibited by state legislation). The Tribunal correctly held that the applicant could not receive compensation for the provision of real estate brokerage services to the defendant, since the applicant was not a licensed broker. (Section 11136 [broker`s licence required to obtain compensation for brokerage services]) But decisions such as Lindenstadt [Citation] prove that the court erred in denying compensation to the applicant, in so far as the applicant`s services were not those of a real estate agent. In Lindenstadt, the parties entered into 25 to 30 written agreements in which the claimant promised to help the defendant find companies for a possible acquisition.
. . .