Under florida law (F.S. §542.335) Restrictive agreements are acceptable and enforceable as long as they meet certain requirements: if you think your non-compete clause is unfair, remember that employers must design contracts to meet each company`s legal requirements. In general, common law prohibitions on competition have often been seen as an inappropriate trade restriction. This was also the case after florida Common Law,12 until Florida lawmakers legally set guidelines to determine whether the competition bans were too restrictive. Florida`s non-compete legal provisions have been revised and amended several times by legislators; In 1996, the non-competition clause was completely rewritten.13 No changes have been made since that recast more than 20 years ago.14 • Contract construction rules – The White decision referred more directly to the non-competition clause that “a court cannot apply a contract construction rule that requires the court to narrowly interpret a restrictive agreement. Against reluctance. This is the same provision that New York and other courts have found so inclined toward the employer and the worker that they violate public order. White`s court briefly mentioned the criticized provision and then tried to downplay its real impact. It acknowledged that the provision “prevents the courts from applying certain rules of contractualization”,60 but immediately compensates that, in the same sentence, by focusing on the law, “a fairly broad discretion is granted to the courts of justice to design the appropriate contextual remedy”. 61 By way of benefit, the General Court relied on the standard of adequacy of the law and the need to apply that measure to the specific facts on a case-by-case basis in order to counter the allegations that the law is too restrictive. Indeed, White`s court decided that the two cases, which had been consolidated before it for appel, should be referred to the courts to resolve substantive issues. . .