Pros And Cons Of Competition V. Marin

The non-compete Mr. Marin signed is not likely to be enforceable because it is broader than necessary to protect the legitimate business interests of GMH, and it imposes undue hardship on Mr. Marin. Under Colorado law, when a covenant not to compete is valid under any of the four exceptions, it must still be considered reasonable by a court in geography, scope, and duration to be enforceable. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-2-113(2) (2017). To be reasonable, a non-compete agreement must not be broader than necessary to protect the legitimate business interests, and it must not impose undue hardship on the employee. Reed Mill & Lumber Co. v. Jensen, 165 P.3d 733, 736 (Colo. App. 2006). Because there is no exact definition of what is reasonable, the court must look at the specific facts of each case. Zeff, Farrington & Assocs., Inc. v. Farrington, 449 P.2d 813, 814 (Colo. 1969). A trial court has discretion to reform an unreasonable geographic restriction set forth in a covenant not to compete in order to make the scope of the geographic area reasonable. Nat'l Graphics Co. v. Dilley, 681 P.2d 546, 547 (Colo. App. 1984).

Marin signed, is not likely to be enforceable because it is broader than necessary to protect the legitimate business interests of GMH, and it imposes undue hardship on Mr.