Ask a non-compete attorney in Caldwell about restrictive covenants and the first question back is which covenant you mean. The promise a selling owner gives a buyer and the promise an employee gives an employer are different instruments resting on different bargains.
Book Your Free Legal-Strategy CallCall 855-208-2049
Quick answer
A covenant signed by a selling owner protects goodwill the buyer just paid for, and it is supported by the purchase price itself. A covenant signed by a key employee protects an employer’s legitimate business interests during employment. Idaho Code section 44-2701 speaks to the second, and the two are drafted separately.
A Caldwell beverage manufacturer sells to a regional buyer. The owner takes a number that reflects twenty years of customer relationships, then signs a document promising not to go start the same business across the Canyon County line next spring. That promise is a substantial part of what the buyer paid for, and it is not an employment term.
Two weeks later the same owner signs a consulting agreement to help with the transition, and that document contains its own restrictive covenant. The two look similar on the page. They do entirely different work, they rest on different consideration, and the legal frame around them is not identical.
Idaho Code section 44-2701 addresses covenants between an employer and a key employee or key independent contractor, setting out what makes such an agreement enforceable. Understanding what the statute speaks to, and what sits outside it, is the start of drafting either covenant properly.
The value of a business beyond its tangible assets — customer relationships, reputation, trade names and the going-concern value of an assembled operation. It is what a buyer loses if the seller immediately competes, and it is why a sale covenant exists.
A single restrictive covenant is dropped into the employment agreement and treated as covering the sale as well. If the engagement ends early, the parties then argue about whether the restriction was bought with the business or granted with the job.
The sale covenant belongs in the purchase agreement, supported by the purchase price and tied to the goodwill transferred. The employment covenant belongs in the employment or consulting agreement, scoped to the role and the interests that role touches.
Separating them means the buyer’s protection does not depend on the seller staying employed, and the employment restriction can be sized for the job rather than for a sale. Neither document has to carry the other’s weight.
The statute provides that a key employee or key independent contractor may enter into a written agreement or covenant that protects the employer’s legitimate business interests. It is permissive in structure: such an agreement is enforceable where it meets the conditions the section sets.
Those conditions are reasonableness as to duration, as to geographic area, and as to the type of employment or line of business restrained, and the further requirement that the covenant impose no greater restraint than is reasonably necessary to protect the employer’s legitimate business interests.
Each of those is a drafting instruction. A covenant written without a stated term, without a defined territory, or restraining a whole industry rather than the activity the person actually performed is being drafted against the frame the statute describes.
When an owner sells a business, the buyer is paying for the customer relationships and reputation that come with it. A promise not to compete is the mechanism that makes that transfer real, because goodwill the seller can immediately take back was never truly delivered.
The consideration is therefore the purchase price itself, not continued employment. That is why a sale covenant should be granted in the purchase agreement, should recite what it is protecting, and should survive independently of whether the seller stays involved after closing.
Geography is the term most often copied from a form and the one given the least thought. A covenant written around a radius makes sense for a retail location whose customers live nearby. It makes very little sense for an agricultural processor shipping to accounts in several states.
The practical alternative is to define the restraint by what the business actually served: named counties, the Treasure Valley market, a defined customer list, or the specific product lines the company produced. A restriction tied to the business sold is easier to justify than one drawn on a map for convenience.
The honest question is how long the buyer needs to make the acquired relationships its own. That period is shaped by the reorder cycle, the length of customer contracts and how personal the relationships were. A term chosen because it appeared in a template is a term nobody can explain later.
A covenant restraining a seller from food and beverage manufacturing generally is broader than one restraining the seller from producing the categories the company actually made. The narrower version protects the same purchase and asks less of the person signing it.
A non-competition covenant stops an activity. A non-solicitation covenant stops the pursuit of particular people, usually customers and employees. A confidentiality covenant stops the use of particular information. They overlap, but none of them substitutes for the others.
In practice the non-solicitation terms often matter more to a buyer than the non-competition term. The risk to a Caldwell manufacturer’s acquired book is rarely that the seller builds a competing plant; it is that the seller calls six accounts and a plant manager.
Drafting them as separate covenants, each with its own scope and term, means the package does not stand or fall as a single clause.
The covenant should be outlined in the letter of intent, because a seller who first sees a five-year restraint in the purchase agreement will treat it as a late price change. Raising it early makes it a negotiated term rather than an ambush.
Lee Clark drafts and negotiates both sale covenants and key employee agreements for Caldwell companies, including the reasonableness questions Idaho Code section 44-2701 frames for the employment side. The law firm’s Idaho office handles that work alongside the rest of the transaction.
| Question | Covenant from a selling owner | Covenant from a key employee |
|---|---|---|
| What supports it | The purchase price paid for the business and its goodwill | The employment or engagement relationship itself |
| What it protects | Customer relationships and going-concern value the buyer acquired | The employer’s legitimate business interests, as section 44-2701 frames them |
| Where it belongs | In the purchase agreement, surviving independently of any later role | In the employment or consulting agreement, scoped to the role |
| How scope is set | By reference to the business sold and the goodwill transferred | Reasonable duration, geographic area and line of business restrained |
Selling a Caldwell business and facing a restrictive covenant?
Book Your Free Legal-Strategy CallThe bottom line
Put the sale covenant in the purchase agreement where the purchase price supports it, and keep any employment covenant in its own document. Define the territory by the market the business actually served rather than by a radius copied from a form.
Idaho Code section 44-2701 permits a key employee or key independent contractor to enter a written covenant protecting an employer’s legitimate business interests, and sets reasonableness conditions that such an agreement must satisfy.
Reasonableness under section 44-2701 is measured against duration, geographic area, and the type of employment or line of business restrained, together with the requirement that the restraint be no greater than reasonably necessary.
A selling owner’s covenant is supported by the purchase price paid for the business and protects goodwill the buyer acquired, while an employee’s covenant arises from the working relationship and protects the employer’s interests in it.
The covenant given by a selling owner belongs in the purchase agreement itself, so that it rests on the sale consideration and continues for its full term whether or not the seller stays involved.
Territory should reflect the market the business actually served, which for a processor shipping across state lines means a customer or product definition rather than a radius drawn around the facility.
Duration should correspond to how long the buyer needs to make the acquired relationships its own, which depends on reorder cycles, contract lengths and how personal those relationships were.
Non-solicitation covenants restrict approaches to specific customers or employees, while non-competition covenants restrict an activity altogether, and most transactions need both because neither substitutes for the other.
Transactions where the seller continues as an employee or consultant normally contain two covenants, one in the purchase agreement and one in the engagement document, each with its own scope and term.
Raising duration, territory and line of business at the letter of intent stage turns the covenant into a negotiated term, while a seller first seeing a long restraint in the purchase agreement treats it as a price change.
Clark Meyers PC drafts restrictive covenants for Caldwell sellers and buyers from the firm’s Idaho office in Nampa, a Canyon County location shared with Caldwell. The firm does not keep a Caldwell office.
Fill out the form below and we'll get back to you within 24 hours.
We've received your request and will be in touch within 24 hours.