O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 13-8-58 (2019)

(For effective date, see note.) Enforcement by third parties

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)

Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) A court shall not refuse to enforce a restrictive covenant on the ground that the person seeking enforcement is a third-party beneficiary of such contract or is an assignee or successor to a party to such contract.

(b) In determining the enforceability of a restrictive covenant, it is not a defense that the person seeking enforcement no longer continues in business in the scope of the prohibited activities that is the subject of the action to enforce the restrictive covenant if such discontinuance of business is the result of a violation of the restriction.

(c) A court shall enforce a restrictive covenant by any appropriate and effective remedy available at law or equity, including, but not limited to, temporary and permanent injunctions.

(d) In determining the reasonableness of a restrictive covenant between an employer and an employee, as such terms are defined in subparagraphs (A) through (C) of paragraph (5) of Code Section 13-8-51, a court may consider the economic hardship imposed upon an employee by enforcement of the covenant; provided, however, that this subsection shall not apply to contracts or agreements between or among those persons or entities listed in paragraphs (2) through (7) of subsection (a) of Code Section 13-8-52.

History

(Code 1981, § 13-8-58, enacted by Ga. L. 2009, p. 231, § 3/HB 173.)

Annotations

Editor’s notes. - For information as to the effective date of this Code section, see

the delayed effective date note at the beginning of this article.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2021–2022 · leading case: Refresco Beverages Us, Inc. v. Califormulations, LLC (M.D. Ga. 2021).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Refresco Beverages Us, Inc. v. Califormulations, LLC (M.D. Ga. 2021). · cites it 2× “See O.C.G.A. § 13-8-58. And, although Florida law allows assignment of restrictive covenants “only if ‘the restrictive covenant expressly authorized enforcement by a party’s assignee,” Florida precedent indicates that restrictive covenants may nonetheless be enforceable if…”

Edmund Burbach v. Motorsports of Conyers, LLC d/b/a Falcons Fury Harley-davidson (Ga. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 2× “13 Further, as Appellees note in their brief, Florida 12 Compare OCGA § 13-8-58 (d) (“In determining the reasonableness of a restrictive covenant between an employer and an employee .”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.