An ill-defined non-competition clause is a source of costly disputes. Its scope, i.e. who it binds and what activities it prohibits, determines its real effectiveness. This concept is far more subtle than a simple limitation in time and space. Whereas the complete guide to the non-competition obligation explores the whole subject, this article looks specifically at the contours of this scope. Understanding precisely how far this obligation extends is essential for any manager or entrepreneur wishing to protect their business or, conversely, preserve their entrepreneurial freedom.
Determining the subjects of the non-competition obligation: who is bound?
One of the most complex aspects of the scope of a non-competition obligation is identifying all the persons bound by it. While the signatory of the contract is obviously the first person to be affected, the issue becomes more complicated when third parties are involved, particularly in the event of inheritance or transfer of property. Case law has had to clarify these situations to ensure that the obligation is not emptied of its substance.
Transmission of the obligation to the universal successors
The concept of "universal successors in title" mainly refers to universal heirs and legatees who receive all or part of the estate of a deceased person. The question is therefore whether these heirs and legatees also inherit the non-competition obligations of the deceased.
The non-competition claim, i.e. the right to require a third party not to compete with you, is an asset that passes easily to your heirs. If you buy a business and the seller dies, your heirs will be able to continue to rely on the non-competition obligation.
The situation is more delicate for the non-competition obligation. In principle, an obligation not to do something is considered personal (intuitu personae) and should not be passed on. However, case law adopts a pragmatic approach. If the debtor's heirs, by virtue of their name or their relationship with the deceased, are in a position to capture the clientele that the obligation was intended to protect, the courts may consider that the obligation has passed to them. This is a case-by-case assessment, where the economic purpose of the clause takes precedence over a purely theoretical approach. This transfer is complex and its validity is closely linked to the conditions for the validity of non-competition clauseswhich require a balance between protection of interests and freedom of enterprise.
Transmission of the obligation to successors in title: personal right or servitude?
A successor in title is a person who acquires a specific right or asset, such as the buyer of a building or the transferee of a business. In principle, he or she is not bound by the contracts entered into by his or her predecessor. However, there are exceptions.
As in the case of heirs, the non-competition claim attached to a business or company passes to the successive purchaser. It is seen as an accessory to the business, essential to its protection.
In real estate matters, the question has given rise to debates on the classification of the obligation. Can a clause prohibiting the exercise of a competing activity on neighbouring land be considered as a simple personal obligation, binding only on the signatories, or as a real servitude attached to the property? Case law has accepted the possibility of creating a "non-competition easement". If it is classified as such and published, the obligation then falls on the land itself (the servient land) for the benefit of another (the dominant land). In practical terms, this means that all successive owners of the servient land will be bound by the prohibition, which considerably strengthens the scope of the initial undertaking.
Defining the purpose of the non-competition obligation: what activities are prohibited?
The scope of a non-competition obligation is not limited to knowing who is bound, but also to determining precisely what is prohibited. A vague or overly broad definition can render the clause ineffective or have it struck down by a judge. It is therefore essential to carefully define the scope of the prohibition.
Prohibited activity: specificity and contractual interpretation
The object of the prohibition must be clearly defined. It may be an explicit designation ("prohibition on carrying on the bakery-pastry business") or a more implicit reference to the business carried on by the creditor of the obligation ("prohibition on carrying on a business similar to that of the business transferred").
In the event of a dispute, the courts will interpret the clause to determine the common intention of the parties. They look to see whether the activities are substitutable, i.e. whether they are aimed at the same customers to meet identical or similar needs. For example, the sale of ready-made meals can be considered as a competing activity with a restaurant, even if the consumption patterns are different. A clear definition is essential, as it will serve as a reference for the judge to determine whether there has been an infringement and, consequently, to apply the relevant penalties. penalties for non-performance.
Methods of carrying out the prohibited activity: direct or indirect, employee or partner
Competition can take many forms. An effective clause must anticipate the devious means by which a debtor could breach its undertaking. The prohibition generally covers the exercise of the activity directly (by setting up one's own business) or indirectly (through an intermediary, such as a spouse or a shell company).
The prohibited modes of practice are often detailed to leave no room for doubt. In practical terms, this means that the non-competition obligation can be broken down into several specific prohibitions:
- Non-reinstallation : prohibition on creating or operating a similar business on one's own account.
- Non-hiring : prohibition on working as an employee for a competing company.
- Non-affiliation : in the context of a network (franchise, concession), prohibition on joining a competing network.
- Non-solicitation: a ban on canvassing the creditor's customers or employees.
The wording must be as exhaustive as possible to cover all possible forms of competition and avoid circumvention.
Key distinctions: non-competition, exclusivity, discretion and non-solicitation
Legal vocabulary can be a source of confusion. The non-competition obligation is often confused with other similar concepts which, although intended to protect commercial interests, have very different regimes and scopes. Clarifying these distinctions is essential if you are to choose the right contractual instrument.
Non-competition obligation and exclusivity obligation: differences and overlaps
These two obligations are often present in distribution contracts, but they are not interchangeable. The non-competition obligation prohibits the debtor from carrying on a given activity. The exclusivity obligation, on the other hand, requires the debtor to reserve a service for a single partner. For example, a car dealer subject to exclusivity undertakes to sell only vehicles of a specific make, but he is not prevented from carrying on his business. If they were subject to a non-competition clause (after the end of the contract, for example), they would be prohibited from selling cars of any make.
Non-competition obligation and non-disclosure or confidentiality obligation
Protecting a company also means preserving its strategic information. This is the purpose of the obligation of confidentiality, or non-disclosure, which prohibits the disclosure of secret information (know-how, customer files, commercial strategies). Its aim is to protect an intangible competitive advantage.
The non-competition obligation goes further: it prohibits not only the disclosure of information, but above all its use for one's own account in a rival activity. The two clauses are complementary and are often stipulated together to offer maximum protection, one protecting the secret and the other preventing its active exploitation by a competitor.
Non-competition clause and non-affiliation or non-solicitation clause
Non-affiliation and non-solicitation clauses are often regarded as variations on, or attenuated forms of, the non-competition clause, but they deserve particular attention. The non-affiliation clause prohibits a former member of a network (a franchisee, for example) from joining a competing network. The non-solicitation clause prohibits active canvassing of the former co-contractor's customers or staff.
Although their scope seems more limited, case law tends to subject them to the same conditions of validity as non-competition clauses (limitation in time and space, proportionality). In fact, in some sectors, prohibiting membership of a network is tantamount to preventing the business from being conducted. The legal characterisation is therefore less important than the actual effect of the restriction on the debtor's freedom of enterprise.
Solent Avocats' support: anticipating scope issues
Our firm has observed that many disputes relating to non-competition arise from imprecise drafting of the scope of the obligation. A clause that is too broad will be struck down by the court, leaving the creditor unprotected. A clause that is too restrictive or badly worded will leave loopholes that the debtor will not fail to exploit.
The role of our team of lawyers is to anticipate these risks. We don't just apply a model clause. We analyse your business, the nature of your contractual relations (transfer of business, franchise agreement, partnership agreement) and your commercial objectives to define a tailor-made scope. This involves clearly identifying the persons to be bound, the activities to be prohibited and the modes of practice to be prohibited, while ensuring that the clause remains proportionate and complies with legal requirements and case law.
The scope of a non-competition obligation is a minefield where there is no room for approximation. Precise drafting that anticipates specific situations and respects the conditions of validity is the only guarantee of effective protection. To audit your existing contracts or to secure your new commercial relationships, our law firm specialises in unfair competition law will help you define a fair and defensible scope of action.
Sources
- Commercial Code, in particular Articles L. 145-8, L. 341-1 and L. 341-2
- Civil Code, in particular articles 1163, 1199, 1205, 1217 et seq.
- Law no. 66-879 of 29 November 1966 on professional non-trading companies
- Law no. 2015-990 of 6 August 2015 for growth, activity and equal economic opportunities
EN 
FR