"The reasonableness of a noncompetition provision is a question of law when the relevant facts are undisputed." Coates v Bastian Bros, Inc, $276$ Mich App $498,506$; $741$ NW$2$d $539(2007).$ As such, because the parties do not dispute the relevant facts in this appeal, we review de novo, as a question of law, the reasonableness of the employee handbook provision. Id$."$We review a trial court's decision to grant injunctive relief for an abuse of discretion," which occurs when the trial court's "decision falls outside $[$the$]$ range of principled outcomes." Pontiac Fire Fighters Union Local $376$ v City of Pontiac, $482$ Mich $1,8$; $753$ NW$2$d $595(2008).$ "A court by definition abuses its discretion when it makes an error of law." In re Waters Drain Drainage Dist, $296$ Mich App $214,220$; $818$ NW$2$d $478(2012).$

B$.$ ANALYSIS

"A court must assess the reasonableness of $[$a$]$ noncompetition clause if a party has challenged its enforceability." Coates, $276$ Mich App at $507-508.$ Here, defendant challenged the reasonableness of the noncompetition clauses in the trial court. Thus, the court erred in ruling that plaintiff was entitled to enforce the clauses as written, and abused its discretion in granting injunctive relief accordingly, without first assessing the reasonableness of the clauses. See id$,$ In re Waters Drain Drainage Dist, $296$ Mich App at $220.$

We must determine whether the clauses are reasonable and enforceable. Because the applicable statute and caselaw requires an inherently fact$-$specific inquiry, at issue is whether the noncompetition provisions protect plaintiff's "reasonable competitive business interests" in the context of plaintiff's specific business. The burden is on plaintiff, as the party seeking to enforce the agreement, to establish the validity of the noncompetition clause. Coates, $276$ Mich App at $508.$

In general, contracts are presumed to be legal, valid, and enforceable. Id$.$ at $507.$ However, "noncompetition agreements are disfavored as restraints on commerce and are only enforceable to the extent they are reasonable" Id:; see also id$.$ at $506("$Agreements not to compete are permissible under Michigan law as long as they are reasonablen$)$ The reasonableness requirement is embodied in MCL $445\mathrm{.}774$a$(1),$ which provides:

An employer may obtain from an employee an agreement or covenant which protects an employer's reasonable competitive business interests and expressly prohibits an employee from engaging in employment or a line of business after termination of employment if the agreement or covenant is reasonable as to its duration, geographical area, and the type of employment or line of business. To the extent any such agreement or covenant is found to be unreasonable in any respect, a court may limit the agreement to render it reasonable in light of the circumstances in which it was made and specifically enforce the agreement as limited$.$

MCL $445\mathrm{.}774$a$(1)$ is the codification of Michigan common$-$law rules regarding the enforceability of noncompetition agreements. St Clair Med, PC v Borgiel, $270$ Mich App $260,265-266$;$715$ NW$2$d $914(2006).$