Legal Case StudyIn this case both Bill and Brenda are experiencing legal problems regarding their employment contracts. I have been asked to advise both of us on the law of restrictive covenants. In this essay I intend to provide clear advice on how to overcome their problems.2 Restrictive Covenants Restrictive Covenants are those where the ability to work after leaving a job is limited. Wherever the person in question wishes to work, who they wish to work for or whether the new position is related to the field of work with the previous employer is prohibited under restrictive covenants. Contracts in restraint of trade are void, however restrictive covenants are enforceable if they can be shown to be unreasonable in the interests of the parties, for example "The worldwide restraint was reasonable……...provisional interdict renewed" and unreasonable in the interests of the public, e.g. "attempt to prevent his current clients from being turned away." 3.0 Bill's Legal ProblemBill works for a company called Worldwide Pharmaceuticals Plc. He was offered a position at Global Pharmaceuticals Plc. However, he is concerned that his contract prevents him from working for a commercial competitor for two years if he leaves Worldwide Pharmaceuticals Plc. Worldwide Pharmaceuticals is considered unreasonable. They don't want Bill to work for another company, specializing in the same business area they do for a two-year period. This is unreasonable, as Global Pharmaceutical plc has offered Bill a much more lucrative salary than he receives at Worldwide Pharmaceuticals. Bill has been with Worldwide Pharmaceuticals for five years. Your contract may contain a clause to state that a competitive salary is in place, if this is the case then the Worldwide Pharmaceuticals company has not offered to match the rival company's offer, and has therefore breached the contract making it void. Bill's current employers are being unreasonable in asking Bill not to take the job. Bill should appeal arguing that the contract and time period are unreasonable. Furthermore, if the courts decide that the contract is reasonable, then Bill would have to appeal to have Worldwide Pharmaceuticals offer him a more competitive salary, i.e. they would have to increase his salary to that offered to him by Global Pharmaceuticals. Worldwide Pharmaceuticals can argue that Bill had access to its company's confidential information regarding Bill's research, but must prove that Bill had access to that information.