[narrator] >> jack holloway undoubtedly would have been better off had his son-in-law reviewed the contractore holloway signed it, rather than 12 months later. while the cash settlement was generous enough, the non-compete clause was brutally strict. first, it stipulated that holloway couldn't open a similar business in that state for the next 30 years, but equally damaging, it prohibited him from going to work for anyone else in his business also for a period of 30 years, which brings us back to the question of why jack holloway wound up working in an office in a field of no interest to him. and the answer is that basically he had no choice. that is, unless he could convince the court that the non-compete clause he agreed to when he sold his business was unreasonable and, therefore, contrary to public policy. in order to evaluate whether this particular non-compete clause was unreasonable or not, we need to examine why the court permits non-compete clauses under any circumstances. >> courts recognize, in most instances, the need for non-competition or covenants not to compete clauses in co