This strict approach makes sense. If, as a legal system, we readily legalize contractual clauses that restrict occupation and competition, then an incentive will be created for thousands of commercial entities in the market to impose them. After all, everyone will have an interest in reducing the ability of their employees or business partners to compete with him after a breakup. And what is appropriate and appropriate for one commercial company will be appropriate and appropriate for all, and thus we find that employment contracts and business contracts - thousands and tens of thousands of them - include various and strange limitations according to the good imagination of the limiters.
Giving free rein to such stipulations hasbecome a powerful tool in the hands of existing business entities to prevent competition from new business entities. And the new elements are, by definition, at a disadvantage vis-à-vis the veterans. In many cases, they will be forced to agree to such restrictions in order to penetrate the markets they are interested in in order to gain relevant experience. And the cumulative effect of all of this will lead to a fatal blow to competition, the free market, and freedom of occupation.
It should be remembered that the judicial point of view, in such disputes, should never be limited to the single stipulation of the one contract under review. You have legitimized the one condition, you have legitimized all the others as it is, with all the implications for the public as a whole. These consequences must also be taken into account, and not only the direct interests of the parties to the dispute that is being decided.
Against this background, it is not surprising that stipulations restricting competition and freedom of occupation have been invalidated by the courts because they contradict public policy, regardless of competition law and restrictive arrangements. This is a clear and clear example of the indirect applicability of constitutional rights in private law, by means of private valve concepts such as "good faith" and "public policy" (see Aharon Barak's discussion "Constitutional Rights and Private Law: Applicability in Labor Law, " Elika Barak-Ososkin 363 (The President (ret.( Stefan Adler et al., eds., 2012 (hereinafter: Barak).