Re: Big Typo in non-compete clause

If you are an employee the contract as a whole is most likely unenforceable and void because it is a restraint on competition. However, with that said you can not unfairly compete with the employer by taking the employers trade secrets or other items. The clause is governed by Business and professions Code Sec 16000 et. seq.

B. & P.C. 16600 reflects a strong public policy of the state. California courts have consistently declared the statute to be an expression of public policy to ensure that all citizens retain the right to pursue any lawful employment and enterprise of their choice. The statute is based on a policy that an employee's interests in mobility and betterment are deemed paramount to employers' competitive business interests, where there has been no illegal act accompanying an employment change. It follows that California has a strong interest in protecting the freedom of movement of persons whom California-based employers (such as plaintiff) wish to employ to provide services in California, regardless of the person's state of residence or precise degree of involvement in California projects, and there is no reason why these employees' interests should not be deemed paramount to the competitive business interests of out-of-state as well as in-state employers. (61 C.A.4th 900.)

Re: Big Typo in non-compete clause

The non-compete clause, if in an employment contract, is very, very likely to be unenforceable and its mere existence might invalidate some or all of the rest of the contract.

There are some permissible limitations on employees, however; the employer may have the right to ask you to refrain from moonlighting and you may not misappropriate trade secrets (whether or not you sign an agreement not to do so).

Otherwise, California has a strong policy, expressed in statute (see Business and Professions Code Sections 16600, 16601 and 16602) allowing persons to compete with anyone, including former employers, in any lawful business, trade or occupation, and declaring contracts to the contrary void to the extent of the attempted restriction.

Re: Big Typo in non-compete clause

Not necessarily, because either of you can introduce evidence of intention.

But more significantly, the question is whether the agreement is enforceable at all. California, like, most states, frowns on non-compete clauses, and unless you meet certain strict requirements, the non-compete is not enforceable.

For example, if you are a non-equity employee, then the non-compete is likely completely unenforceable, even if you agreed to it.

There are many other rules and issues, but unless you have a very high position with the company and/or have an ownership interest, the non-compete is likely not enforceable.

Re: Big Typo in non-compete clause

In California, non-competes are generally unenforceable. Unless its a non-compete in connection with the sale of a business (i.e. you sell your business to the buyer who can make you sign a valid con-compete). Otherwise, they are unenforceable in the employment context and you are free to work for another employer.