There is an exception to the restrictions imposed by the blue pencil rule after termination, if a contract remains valid even if a contract containing unenforceable clauses remains effective: depending on the nature of the seller`s activity and access to confidential information, a one-year non-competition agreement and a geographical area covering only those three counties could , be appropriate. The court in Von Mason v. Provident Clothing and Supply co. Ltd.12 found that “the separation of the blue pencil can be used sparingly and only in cases where the distant part is clearly separable, trivial and not part of the main objective of the Restrictive Federation. 13 The blue pencil rule should be applied if the true design of the clause cannot go through the verification of reason, without writing or deleting a word from paragraph 14, and should not be used in such a way as to change its full meaning.15 the blue pencil doctrine applies not only to alliances dealing with trade restrictions or non-competition, but also applies to arbitration clauses.27 In the case of Sunil Kumar Singhal and another v. Vinod Kumar28, it has been found that the insulting part of the arbitration clause may be separated or marked with the blue pencil. The courts applied this doctrine to the contract, where a clause was superfluous, unnecessary and contrary to public policy.29 The court held that if the contract for the sale of real estate with eight apartments is illegal and not bitter, in violation of the building rules and the master plan, the agreement on the sale of real estate with a lower number of dwellings , if authorized in accordance with Section 12 30 If none of these options will, then the courts may apply the blue pencil method, which consists of removing parts of the clause that are not considered enforceable, while the rest is maintained as it is. Well, in the case of the example above, the blue pencil and the red pencil will finally have the same effect. However, if the non-compete clause indicates that you cannot work for a competitor in your state or for one of the directly neighboring states, then the Blaustift doctrine may remove that provision not to work in other states and apply it only to the state in which you worked. In situations where the inability of competition is reasonably divisible, a court may apply the blue pencil rule by issuing an unacceptable clause and imposing acceptable and enforceable clauses. However, a court can remove only inappropriate parts, but cannot add or modify part of the contract. At Haraeus Medical, LLC v.

Zimmer, Inc., a contract was submitted to the Indiana Supreme Court, which contained both a non-competition agreement and a reform clause authorizing a court to amend all unenforceable provisions. Having rendered the Indiana Court of Appeals obsolete and unenforceable, it revised the provision by adding a language that limited its scope and made it appropriate. However, the Indiana Supreme Court refused to extend the blue pencil doctrine.