SAMUEL L. BRENNER, APPELLANT,
v.
BARCO CHEMICALS DIVISION, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
Brenner, former sales manager of Barco Chemicals, appealed a one-year non-compete injunction. The court upheld the non-compete restriction, finding that Brenner remained bound by the contract's terms even after its initial expiration because the company retained his services without executing a new formal agreement.
The non-compete restriction remained binding on Brenner. Because the contract's express terms provided that continued service without a new formal contract would extend the original contract's terms, and Brenner's non-compete obligation applied to the entire period of his employment plus one year following termination, the restriction was enforceable.
“In case the services of SALES MANAGER [Brenner] are retained by COMPANY after the expiration of this contract without formal contract, it is hereby mutually agreed that the terms of this contract shall continue to govern the relations between COMPANY and SALES MANAGER.”
The critical contractual language showing that continued service without a new formal agreement extended the original contract's terms and restrictions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBrenner was the sales manager for Barco Chemicals Division, Inc. under a contract that expired August 6, 1965. The contract contained a clause providi…
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 Employment Status cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal by the defendant, Brenner, from a final decree which restrained him from engaging or entering into a business similar to that of Barco Chemicals for a period of one year in Dade or Broward County.
Appellant, Brenner, former sales manager of the company, argues that the contract between the parties had expired by its terms on August 6, 1965 and its restrictions from competing are not binding on him. The express terms of the agreement, however, provided in part:
******
“In case the services of SALES MANAGER [Brenner] are retained by COMPANY after the expiration of this contract without formal contract, it .is hereby mutually agreed that the terms of this contract shall continue to govern the relations between COMPANY and SALES MANAGER. (R 69) * * *” [Brackets ours]
5jC % }}{ }JC >|<
The language of the agreement also provided for non competition by Brenner “during the term of his employment by company and for a period of one year immediately following the expiration or termination of such employment by mutual agreement.”
This provision differs from, and is distinguishable, from Storz Broadcasting Co. v. Courtney,1 where the court held “that the convenant relating to restriction against competing was applicable only to termination of employment during the term.”
The defendant herein wrote to the plaintiff on February 10, 1967 and tendered his resignation as an employee of the plaintiff. He left the date of actual termination to the discretion of the company but stated he would appreciate it if it were no later than March 25, 1967 (43 days later). It was accepted by the company, immediately.
Brenner claims that he is an officer, to-wit a Vice President, not an employee, of the company and that the contract as applied to him is void as against public policy. There is sufficient competent evidence in the record to sustain a finding that he was an employee of plaintiff and the contract is not void as against the public policy of Florida. See Fla.Stat. § 542.12, F.S.A.
We have considered the other arguments advanced by the appellant and the appellee in its cross assignments of error and find them to be without merit.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sanz v. R.T. Aerospace Corp., 650 So. 2d 1057 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
-
ST. Johns Inv. Mgmt. Co. v. Albaneze, 22 So. 3d 728 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)…en an employment agreement contains a noncompete covenant, the restriction survives the termination of the agreement if the agreement contains express language demonstrating that the parties intended its survival. Brenner v. Barco Chems. Div., Inc., 209 So. 2d 277, 278 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968) (holding that non-compete provisions survived the expiration of an employment agreement where (1) the contract expressly provided that the provisions would continue to apply if the employee continued working; and (2) the nonc…
-
Coleman v. B.R. Chamberlain & Sons, Inc., 766 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)…contract nor does it expressly provide that the noncom-pete clause would continue in effect following the expiration of the employment. See Sanz v. R.T. Aerospace Corp., 650 So. 2d 1057 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Brenner v. Barco Chemicals Division, Inc., 209 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968). We hereby remand this case to the trial court for entry of a final judgment in favor of Coleman. REVERSED and REMANDED. W. SHARP, and GRIFFIN, JJ„ concur.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Storz Broad. Co. v. Courtney, 178 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)