FOSTER AND COMPANY, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
JACK SNODGRASS, 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 trial court erred in denying injunctive relief for a violation of a noncompetitive agreement, as the employee's violation was clear and sufficient for enforcement under the statute.
[1] A noncompetitive agreement is enforceable under Florida Statute § 542.12(2) when it is neither harsh nor oppressive and the employee violates its terms.
[2] Enforcement of a noncompetitive covenant is not contingent upon the employer possessing a special product, trade secret, or unique marketing device.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff and defendant entered into an agreement where the defendant, an agent, agreed not to compete for two years after termination. After terminat…
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 Injunctive Relief cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHEB, Judge.
Appellant/plaintiff contends the trial court erred in failing to grant injunctive relief under a noncompetitive agreement between it and appellee/defendant. We agree and reverse.
In March 1972, the plaintiff company and defendant entered into a contract whereby the defendant Snodgrass became an independent agent for the sale of the plaintiff’s industrial hardware and chemical products. The agreement included a noncompetitive covenant in which Snod-grass agreed that for a period of two years following termination of the agreement he would not compete with the plaintiff (a) within the State of Florida; or (b) within any territory to which he had been assigned during the twelve months immediately preceding his termination; or (c) with any individual account assigned to or serviced by him while he was an independent agent of the plaintiff.
In February 1974, Snodgrass terminated his association with the plaintiff company. He and other former company salesmen established their own business to sell similar products to the trade, in course of which Snodgrass solicited business from his old customers. Plaintiff sought an injunction to prevent the defendant from violating the covenants outlined in (b) and (c) above. Concluding that the defendant Snodgrass was, when employed, an experienced salesman; that he received only nominal material, advice, and assistance, from the company’s supervisors; that he received no customer lists or route sheets, but rather, only a price list of limited value, the trial court denied the request for an injunction and this appeal by the plaintiff ensued.
Fla.Stat. § 542.12(2), enacted in 1953, provides in pertinent part:
“. . . one who is employed as an agent or employee may agree with his employer, to refrain from carrying on or engaging in a similar business and from soliciting old customers of such employer within a reasonably limited time and area ... so long as such employer continues to carry on a like business therein. Said agreements may, in the discretion of a court of competent jurisdiction be enforced by injunction.”
Where noncompetitive agreements have been shown to be reasonable, they have been consistently upheld by the Florida courts. Miller Mechanical, Inc. v. Ruth, Fla.1974, 300 So. 2d 11; McQuown v. Lakeland Window Cleaning Co., Fla.App. 2d 1962, 136 So. 2d 370; Atlas Travel Service v. Morelly, Fla.App.1st 1957, 98 So. 2d 816. See also, Maimone v. Wackenhut Corp., Fla.App.3d 1976, 329 So. 2d 332. There the defendant who served as supervisor for the plaintiff’s security system had entered into a two-year noncompetitive covenant with his employer. The trial court’s summary judgment, enjoining the defendant from engaging in a competing security guard service for two years after his termination by the plaintiff, was affirmed.
Contrary to the contentions of the defendant, it is not essential that the employer have some special or peculiar product, trade secret, or unique device for marketing its product to justify enforcement of a noncompetitive covenant. Rather, where the agreement is neither harsh nor oppressive, then under Fla.Stat. § 542.12(2) the employee’s violation thereof is a sufficient basis for enforcement.
Snodgrass, who had no prior experience in the hardware business, entered into the noncompetitive agreement advisedly, and irrespective of the value of the material and advice furnished him by the company, it would be unjust to allow him to now use to his own direct advantage the customer relationships he established while employed by the plaintiff. The statute, held constitutional in Standard Newspa pers, Inc. v. Woods, Fla.1959, 110 So. 2d 397, requires that while there is discretion in injunctive enforcement, it nevertheless follows that where, as here, the violation is clear, that injunctive relief is appropriate and should be granted. Miller Mechanical, Inc. v. Ruth, supra. Miller also holds that where the agreement extends beyond a reasonably limited period of time or embraces more than a limited area, the court may delineate the scope of enforcement to what it determines to be reasonable under the circumstances.
Since the trial judge did not address the question as to reasonableness as to the time and area in which Snodgrass is to refrain from engaging in similar business or soliciting former customers, these issues must be addressed by the trial court on remand.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
HOBSON, Acting C. J, and GRIMES, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Twenty Four Collection, Inc. v. Keller, 389 So. 2d 1062 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…(Fla. 3d DCA 1974). Accord, Empiregas, Inc., of Pensacola v. Thomas, 359 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), dismissed, 364 So. 2d 893 (Fla.1978); Royal Services, Inc. v. Williams, 334 So. 2d 154 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Foster and Company, Inc. v. Snodgrass, 333 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); Storz Broadcasting Co. v. Courtney, 178 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965), cert. denied, 188 So. 2d 315 (Fla.1966); Atlas Travel Service, Inc. v. Morelly, 98 So. 2d 816 (Fla. 1st DCA 1957). The only authority the court possesses over…
-
Sarasota Bev. Co. v. Johnson, 551 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)…such an agreement, the courts employ a balancing test to weigh the employer’s interest in preventing the competition against the oppressive effect on the employee. Id. at 12 (citations omitted). This court in Foster and Company, Inc. v. Snodgrass, 333 So. 2d 521, 523 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976) and in Auto Club Affiliates, Inc. v. Donahey, 281 So. 2d 239, 243-244 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973), cert. denied, 285 So. 2d 28 (Fla.1973), expressly approved those same principles regarding a finding of reasonableness under the partic…1 / 3
-
SUN Elastic Corp. v. O.B. Indus., 603 So. 2d 516 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…Inc., 381 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Empiregas, Inc. of Pensacola v. Thomas, 359 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), dismissed, 364 So. 2d 893 (Fla.1978); Royal Servs., Inc. v. Williams, 334 So. 2d 154 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Foster & Co. v. Snodgrass, 333 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); Barco Chemicals Div., Inc. v. Colton, 296 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Storz Broadcasting Co. v. Courtney, 178 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965), cert. denied, 188 So. 2d 315 (Fla.1966); American Bldg. Maintenance Co. v. Fogelman, 1…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Miller Mech., Inc. v. Ruth, 300 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 1974)
- Atlas Travel Serv., Inc. v. Morelly, 98 So. 2d 816 (Fla. 1st DCA 1957)
- Standard Newspapers, Inc. v. Woods, 110 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 1959)
- McQUOWN v. Lakeland Window Cleaning Co., 136 So. 2d 370 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)
- Maimone v. The Wackenhut Corp., 329 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)