#1, "they are not clickable"
That is correct. The ability to put hotlinks into our messages has been disabled due to recent abuses by posters.
#2, "when I type them in, nothing comes up"
Then you need to retype them correctly or to cut and paste them into your browser address line. I just did and they work just fine.
Here is an excerpt from one of them:
"I. Choice of Law Issues in Non-Compete Agreements.
Under Georgia choice of law principles, the law of the jurisdiction chosen by the parties to govern a contract will apply, unless the law chosen will contravene the public policy of Georgia. Hulcher Services, Inc. v. R.J. Corman Railroad Co., LLC, 247 Ga. App. 486, 543 S.E.2d 461 (2000); See also, Nasco, Inc. v. Gimbert, 239 Ga. 675, 238 S.E.2d 368 (1977); Bryan v. Hall Chemical Co., 993 F.2d 831, 834 (11th Cir. 1993). Georgia has a strict public policy against restraints on trade, which has resulted in "employee restriction" contracts in Georgia being subject to strict scrutiny. Bryan, 993 F.2d at 834. This policy has its origin in the Georgia Constitution, Article III, Section VI, Paragraph V(c) which provides:
The General Assembly shall not have the power to authorize any contract or agreement which may have the effect of or which is intended to have the effect of defeating or lessening competition, or encouraging a monopoly, which are hereby declared to be unlawful and void.1
Where a non-compete covenant in the employment context creates a restraint on trade, it is against Georgia public policy and therefore unenforceable. This policy results in many non-compete covenants being construed under Georgia law, despite the parties' intention to apply the law of another state. In Hulcher Services, although the parties agreed that the contract would be governed by Texas law, the court found that Texas non-compete law was adverse to Georgia public policy, and applied Georgia law. 543 S.E.2d at 465; See also, Nasco, 238 S.E.2d at 369 (applying Georgia law despite the parties' agreement that Tennessee law would apply); Enron Capital & Trade Resources Corp. v. Pokalsky, 227 Ga. App. 727, 490 S.E.2d 136 (1997)(applying Georgia law over Texas law); Barnes Group, Inc. v. Harper, 653 F.2d 175, 178 (5th Cir., Unit B 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 921 (1982)(applying Georgia law over Ohio law); Marketing and Research Counselors, Inc. v. Booth, 601 F.Supp. 615, 616 (N.D. Ga. 1985)(where non-compete covenants lacked territorial restrictions and it would be contrary Georgia public policy to enforce a covenant without a territorial restriction, the court applied Georgia law despite the presence of a choice-of-law provision that the covenants were to be governed by Texas law).
Notwithstanding Georgia courts' unwillingness to enforce choice-of-law provisions where it would be contrary to public policy, in April 2000, the Georgia Court of Appeals held that a forum selection clause in an employment agreement containing non-compete provisions is enforceable. Iero v. Mohawk Finishing Products, Inc., 243 Ga. App. 670, 534 S.E.2d 136 (2000). The plaintiff, Iero, worked for Mohawk within the state of Georgia. He entered into an employment agreement containing non-competition restrictions and a forum selection clause requiring all suits to be brought in New York. Iero resigned from Mohawk and immediately started competing in violation of his non-compete agreement. He brought a declaratory judgment action in Georgia, seeking to have his non-compete agreement declared unenforceable. Id. at 137. The Court of Appeals held that forum selection clauses, even in employment agreements, are prima facie valid unless the opposing party shows that enforcement is not reasonable under the circumstances. Iero failed to show that it would be inconvenient for him to litigate in New York or that the forum selection clause violated Georgia public policy. Iero also failed to address whether a New York court would even apply New York law. As a result, the forum selection clause was enforced. Arguably, if the covenant were enforced under New York law, it would violate the Georgia public policy against restraints on trade and therefore be unreasonable. However, because Iero failed to raise this issue, it was not addressed by the court."
