The newcomers also argue that the movants did not determine the locations of other funeral homes owned or operated by newcomer affiliates, and therefore, in the advocacy phase, we do not know the true extent of the clause. The Movants respond that it does not matter because the clause at issue is in itself unreasonable. Referring to the unprecedented case of Cottonwood Fin., Ltd. Reid, they assert that work bans near sites that are simply owned by the employer – unlike the actual location on which the worker worked – are necessarily inappropriate. 2008 WI App 83, 12, 312 Wis.2d 481, 751 N.W.2d 903 (Wis.Ct.App.2008). In this case, where an employee was being treated in a pay credit transaction, the clause applied to any business in which the worker had worked and by its simple conditions, which meant that it also applied to transactions where the employee had completed only a few days. Although the employee`s store was in Green Bay, she was denied work in or near Wausau, Hudson and Sheboygan simply because she had worked temporarily on these sites. The Court of Appeal found that the clause was excessive. “It`s absurd if Cottonwood suggests that after three days in Wausau or four days in Hudson, customers would be willing to go up to 200 miles in one direction to follow Reid to Green Bay instead of continuing to do business at the local Cottonwood site.” Id. Schetter and Lyndahl first argue that Section 7 (a) of the agreement is inappropriate because it imposes a restriction not only within 25 miles of Green Bay, but also “at any other site owned by any of the businesses listed or operated by the preamble.” (ECF 1-1 to 7 (a)) The newcomers, more summarily, dispute this and argue that the contract limits staff to work within 25 miles of the institution in which they were actually employed. But the clear terms of the agreement see a blockage for work within a “25-mile radius of the funeral home where the worker is employed or from another place in possession or exploitation… (ECF 1-1 to 7 (a)) In Beilfuss v. Huffy Corp., the Tribunal refused to apply a foreign law provision because The Ohio law governing Wisconsin`s non-competition was different from Wisconsin`s: “Wis. Stat.
Restrictive Bund with inappropriate restraint is illegal, nullity and unenforceable, even for so many … “would be a good restraint.” On the other hand, Ohio law allows the selective application or judicial modification of an inappropriate federal alliance not to compete to impose the Confederacy deemed appropriate. 2004 WI App 118, 15, 274 Wis.2d 500, 508-09, 685 N.W.2d 373, 377 (Wis.Ct.App.2004).