NELSON KUSNER AND MANMEX, INC., A TEXAS CORPORATION, AND NK INDUSTRIES, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
AMERICAN MINERALS, INC., APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the non-competition agreement did not preclude the appellants from engaging in competitive activities after employment termination.
Appellee sought a preliminary injunction to enforce a non-competition agreement against appellants after their employment ended. The agreement contain…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Interpretation Of Contract Terms cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We reverse the preliminary injunction under review1 because the non-competition agreement purportedly enforced below does not extend to preclude any competitive activities undertaken, as in this case, by the appellants after the termination of their employment with the appellee.2
. This holding has no effect upon any claims by the appellee for damages arising out of an alleged breach of the agreement or of any fiduciary relationship between the parties.
. The controlling provision of the contract is paragraph 7(a), which states that the corporate appellant, Manmex, "... will not directly or indirectly engage in any form or branch of the manganese business, except as representative for American Minerals during the term of this agreement." [e.s.]
The appellee argues that paragraph 7(c) applies to the individual appellant, Kusner. That provision states that Manmex "... will include in all contracts of employment with any salesman restrictive covenants as permitted by law prohibiting such salesman from engaging in any business in competition with American Minerals during his employment, and for a reasonable period after the termination of his employment." [e.s.] This contention is incorrect. It is obvious that Manmex and Kusner, who is specifically described as "the President and sole shareholder of Manmex" and who executed the agreement both individually and as Manmex’s representative, are entirely inseparable as parties to the contract and that Kusner thus may not be considered a "salesman" of Manmex under paragraph 7(c).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Anstead v. COX Broad. & CNA Ins., 500 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…dealing with a specific subject takes precedence over an earlier statute covering the same subject in general terms. Tribune Co. v. School Board of Hillsborough County, 367 So. 2d 627 (Fla.1979); Brescher v. Associates Financial Services Co., Inc., 460 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Strahl v. Strahl, 431 So. 2d 729 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Marston v. Gainesville Sun Publishing Co., Inc., 341 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). The above rule should be applied to the case at bar. The two subsections, when considered…
-
J.N. Laliotis Eng'g Constr., Inc. v. Mastor, 600 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)…e reached, transferred or conveyed. We note, however, that subsection (1) from which they extract this legal position is expressly subject to the exceptions in subsections (3) and (4). Relying on Brescher v. Associates Financial Services Co., Inc., 460 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), appellees assert that section 679.311 must be read in pari mate-ria with section 379.306(2), Florida Statutes (1989), and that the legal effect of reading these two statutes together is that the bank would have the immediate rig…
-
Westlake Flooring Co., LLC v. Miami Motorsports, LLC (Fla. 4th DCA 2025)