Non-compete agreements are usually found in employments contracts in where a company wants to prevent their employees from working for a competing company. The focus of the non-compete agreement is to protect a company’s business interest and trade secrets but, a non-compete covenant must be laboriously drafted to follow the state’s regulation in order to be enforced in court. There is an enormous discrepancy when it comes to cases that deal with non-compete agreements since it deals with revising if the non-compete agreement was lawful to begin with; courts do not have a consistent approach to this. A lot of companies request the courts to enforce the covenant but, in most cases, the agreement is unenforceable due to the unethical and unlawful …show more content…
Central Garage, Inc. It was a challenging opinion to read since this case is old and, at that time, no Florida court had addressed the precise issue presented. The facts of the case are that Central Garage DBA Gulfcoast is a corporation that performs installations, repair and maintenance of auto air conditioners and auto accessories. On the other side, Hapney worked in many auto repair shops in the Tampa area where he learned to install and repair auto air conditioning systems. In 1988, he started working for Gulfcoast, where he entered into a non-compete agreement. The agreement stated the following: “I further agree that for a period of three years following the termination of my employment I will not offer, as an agent, employee, owner, or distributor, similar products or services on behalf of a competitor of the Company on the west coast of Florida from Crystal River to Naples or inland 100 miles.” A year after working with Gulfcoast, Hapney willingly ended his employment with Gulfcoast and a month later, Gulfcoast filed a lawsuit to enforce the covenant not to compete in where the trial court granted an injunction. As stated earlier, at the time of the case, there wasn’t many decisions in which the judge can cite and base his decision on. The judge for this case had to look for cases in other states to get an idea of cases with a similar issue, which makes it a tough case to decide on. Some of the issues that the appellate court focused on is that Hapney did not receive significant training on installing and repairing automobile air conditioning systems, he had no significant contacts with Gulfcoast’s customers, and he did not acquire trade secrets from Gulfcoast. These were three issues that were heavily discussed on the opinion and it amazes the kind of detail that they were covered with. The
Belanger v. Swift Transportation, Inc. is a case concerned with the qualified privilege of employers. In this case Belanger, a former employee of Swift Transportation, sued the company for libel in regard to posting the reason for his termination on a government data website accessible to other potential employers. Swift has a policy of automatic termination if a driver is in an accident, unless it can be proved that it was unpreventable. When Belanger rear ended another vehicle while driving for Swift the company determined the accident was preventable, while Belanger maintained it was not. Upon his termination Swift posted on a database website for promoting highway safety that he was fired because he “did not meet the company’s safety standards,”
Judicial History: The District court of Iowa granted a motion for summary judgement in favor of National By-Products, Inc. The court determined that Dale Dyer had an invalid claim to bring forth a lawsuit, thus lacking consideration to create a contract.
“Processor Editorial Article - Antitrust Laws: Not Just For The Big Boys.” Editorial.Processor 19 Nov. 2004: 27+. Processor.com. Web. 29 Nov. 2011 .
Speakers of Sport INC is appearing in court for the filing of a diversity suit against ProServ INC. In the suit one sport agency (Speakers) has brought about charges against another (ProServ) for tortious interference within a business relationship. Speakers INC claims that ProServ INC interfered with their representation of a highly profiled baseball catcher name Ivan Rodriguez by promising him false enrichments of money in endorsements.
I believe that the expansion of prisoners’ rights, since the famous Cooper v. Plate (1964) case, has been a great thing. For a long time prisoners were treated like they were not a person, like they were the filth of this earth. They had no rights and were not offered any type of protection within the correctional system. With the Cooper v. Plate case, came the law that the prisoners’ rights would be protected by the constitution. This also led to prisoners being able to file lawsuits against state officials who may be violating their rights, and their overall treatment within the correctional system. These were luxuries that prisoners had not had before. They were not given the basic human rights, nor were their rights protected by the constitution. No one had truly advocated for prisoner rights, until this case. This case paved the way for prisoner rights and the humane treatment for all.
Tinker v. Des Moines School Area is a case about representative discourse. The Vietnam War which endured from 1955 until 1974, was a fight amongst North and South Vietnam, North Vietnam needed to join the nation under socialism. South Vietnam opposed with the assistance from America. Before the finish of 1965, there were a great many American officers battling in the war.
Cooperton alleged a bare procedural violation that is insufficient to satisfy the concrete injury portion of the injury-in-fact requirement for standing.
If we assume the verein is treated as a single law firm, there is a conflict arising out of the representation of Laser’s Edge and current client Gump. First, based on the facts, I am going to assume that verein member MPG is representing Laser’s Edge in the patent litigation against Gump. With this in mind, we have to determine whether our relationship with Gump has terminated after our last representation of the organization three months ago. Our problem here is that there was no express termination of our attorney-client relationship with Gump and the length of time and number of issues our firm has represented Gump indicate that our relationship is ongoing.
Stuart v. Nappi was class lawsuit Stuart’s mother filed against school personnel and the Danbury Board of Education because she claimed that her daughter was not receiving the rights granted in the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA). Kathy Stuart was a student at Danbury High School in Connecticut with serious emotional, behavior, and academic difficulties. She was suppose to be in special education classes, but for some reason she hardly ever attended them. Kathy was involved in a school-wide disturbance. As a result of her complicity in these disturbances, she received a ten-day disciplinary suspension and was scheduled to appear at a disciplinary hearing. The Superintendent of Danbury Schools recommended to the Danbury Board of Education
As an employee, I would argue that a covenant- not- to- compete must not unjustifiably burden the employee’s right to make a living. This means that the agreement must be reasonable in its scope and duration.
The case of Burger King Corporation v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 105 S. Ct. 2174, 85 L. Ed. 2d 528 (1985) addressed the issue of personal jurisdiction and whether or not it violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The plaintiff, Burger King, is a Florida corporation whose principal offices are located in Miami. The defendant, John Rudzewicz, was a resident of Michigan and a principal of a Michigan franchise. Rudzewicz, as a franchisee owner, had been given a license to use Burger King’s name and logo (trademarks) to operate a Burger King in Michigan. The contract between the franchisor and franchisee stated that the franchisor relationship (contract) is under the control of Florida. Other provisions of the contract include required monthly payments of fees and royalties to Miami headquarters, and all major decisions and problems had to be communicated with headquarters. In addition, the franchisee had to conduct business at a leased restaurant facility for 20 years. However, the defendant failed to fulfill franchisee obligations by not keeping up with his monthly payments of fees and royalties that he owed to Burger King in Florida. As a result, Burger King sued for a diversity suit against Rudzewicz in an effort to get back the money that they were owed. Burger King claimed a breach of contract, specifically the “Franchise Agreement”, between Burger King (the franchisor) and Rudzewicz (the franchisee). The case eventually made it all the way to the United States Supreme Court (Case Briefs).
This case exhibits that competition law should be applicable to all the countries such that the competition regulations are not violated and the companies who involves them in wrongdoings just to protect their position must be aware of the law. This case also gave lesson to other companies that when they sign any agreement the law should be kept in mind. Otherwise, they will be heavily fined by the jurisdiction. However, Canada has now international cooperation agreements with the competition authorities in many other countries, including the United States, the EU, the United Kingdom, Brazil, Chile, Japan, Korea, Mexico, and New Zealand.
A non competition agreement in an employment contract is a contract between the employee and employer that says the employee cannot work for competitors of the employer for a certain amount of time after the employee has left the company. The best way to determine if the courts have something enforceable is with this question, does the “agreement reasonably balance the employer’s legitimate business interests with the employee’s freedom to choose his or her employment” (Fryberger). These agreements are here to protect the employer’s confidential information and most importantly, the entirety of the business. These non competition agreements help keep the employer in business, but there are certain circumstances that the courts will not enforce these agreements, such as if the agreement is too unreasonable and does not allow the individual to make a living, this could mean the duration of time they are restricted for and/or restrictions on where they can’t work in that geographic
Relkin J. (2006) discusses the concern of employers on former employees as follows; “Many people are required to sign NDAs (nondisclosure agreements) and non-compete clauses in employment contracts, legal documents that restrict their ability to share information with other future employers even to the point of disallowing them to join certain companies or continue to participate in a particular
...ur; in such cases, competition authorities must act to fight unlawful practices that are detrimental for the economic welfare.