at the preliminary injunction hearing that Dickinson served no clients that were located within the 150-mile radius but outside the Commonwealth of Virginia. A restriction outside an employee’s operating area may be enforced only if the employer actually does business there. Clyde Rudd, 29 N.C.App. at 680, 225 S.E.2d at 603. Third, there has been no demonstration that Dickinson’s or Asheboro Paper’s customers covered the Commonwealth of Virginia to show that a statewide restriction would be reasonable. Where the territory is too broad, “the entire covenant fails since equity will neither enforce nor reform an overreaching and unreasonable covenant.” Hartman, 117 N.C.App. at 312-13, 450 S.E.2d at 917-18; Henley Paper Co. v. McAllister, 253 N.C. 529, 534-35, 117 S.E.2d 431, 434 (1960) (<HOLDING>). Asheboro Paper further argued at the hearing
holding that the court cannot by splitting up the territory make a new contract for the parties holding that parties can stipulate that they were both parties to a contract and thus the real parties in interest even when one party did not sign the contract holding that parties to contract cannot prevent borrowed employee status from arising by providing in contract that it cannot arise holding that when a contract is unambiguous the court will enforce the plain meaning of the contract as the intention of the parties holding provision unenforceable as against public policy where the written employment contract was signed by both parties based on reasonable consideration and reasonable as to time and territory restrictions