Repeating what was said elsewhere in the thread, pay less
by Grace91 (2024-04-24 11:28:21)

In reply to: In the latter case  posted by ndtnguy

Post Reply Return to Back Room

for the business and structure the buyout differently, rather than shackle with a noncompete. It can achieve the same ends via different means.

That's a fairly odd understanding of contract negotiations
by ndtnguy  (2024-04-24 11:59:29)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

Owner buyouts in small businesses aren't usually adhesion contracts drafted by the buyer.

Edit: And it's wishful thinking to assume that structured payouts will generate the same protections as a restrictive covenant in every case. If the seller concludes he can undersell his old firm, it could certainly be economically rational for him to get back in the game and forgo the later installments. Whether he can do that consistently with tort law and the Lanham Act depends on the circumstances, but contracts allowed parties to avoid a lot of indeterminability and uncertainty on those questions.
Obviously I am not an attorney. I have however been impacted
by Grace91  (2024-04-24 12:58:53)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

by this on multiple occasions, and my spouse has been on both sides of it.

I am not understanding why a buyer of a small business might not be able to structure the buyout in such a way to protect their interests rather than including a non-compete clause. If you care to explain it in simple terms so that I can follow along I will be happy to learn. That's not snark, I really would be happy to be enlightened.