It is clear that a third party who interferes in the treaty and in question may be held responsible for the damage suffered. We found that “[d] it renders the intentional award of a premeditated contract, without cause for substance or apology, liable for the violation of the resulting damages. Sorenson v. Chevrolet Motor Co., 171 Minn. 260, 266, 214 N.W. 754, 756 (1927); See also Nordling/Northern States Power Co., 478 N.W.2d 498, 505 (Minn.1991) (stating that third parties should not be allowed to intervene in an employment contract at their convenience). Once a party has found that an unlawful intervention has taken place by a third party, the courts can hold that third party liable for all the resulting damages and grant the necessary omission. See Kjesbo v. Ricks, 517 N.W.2d 585, 591 (Minn.1994). These remedial measures can protect an employer`s investment in their business by reducing the risk that confidential proprietary information it has developed will be looted by raids by unauthorized personnel.  See Western Form, Inc. v.
Pickell, 308 F.3d 930 (8. Cir. 2002). (Merger clause in a one-year employment contract that incorporates a non-compete agreement into the contract l. When the contract expired, the non-compete clause began to expire – and expired – while the worker was working in another function for the employer – and refused to sign a new non-competition agreement. When the worker finally stopped and began to compete with the employer, he was not valid, not in competition.)  See z.B. Advanced Bionics Corp. v. Medtronic, 29 Cal.
697 (2002) (considering that even if California courts cannot bring legal action in another state, even if the non-state remedy seeks to impose a broad non-compete clause against a resident state of California, the courts may refuse to comply with the resulting decision of the other state). The regional court found that the employment contracts were valid and asked Kallok to work for The Angelion for one year. The court also found that Angeion had disrupted Kallok`s employment and that Angeion was liable for damages caused by Medtronic`s legal and other costs in its litigation with Kallok. The Court of Appeal upheld the granting of a referral order by the District Court, but quashed the Tribunal`s finding that Kallok`s employment had been unrelenting. We turn around and conclude that Angeion torpedoed Medtronic`s employment contracts with Kallok.