Bob Pagan Ford, Inc. vs. Charles T. Smith, Jr.
OVERVIEW: Appellant automobile dealer, brought an action against appellee, its former employee, to enforce a written covenant in his employment contract not to compete in automobile sales business within the county for a three-year period. The trial court ordered a permanent injunction against appellee for a reduced period of six months, retroactive to the date of employment termination. Appellant sought review, contending that the trial court abused its discretion in reducing the covenant's duration. The reviewing court affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court's decision. The court explained that because the injunction expired seven months prior to the court's decision, reinstatement and extension of the injunction imposed a more onerous burden on appellee than was reasonably necessary to protect appellant's business and good will.
OUTCOME: The court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, finding no abuse of discretion in the reduction of the duration of a covenant not to compete against appellee, former employee, where hardship to appellee by reinstatement of the expired injunction was a more onerous burden than was required to protect the business of appellant.
QUESTION: Was injunctive relief an appropriate remedy in this case? ANALYSIS: Yes, I think injunctive relief was an appropriate remedy. How did they (employer) expect Mr. Smith to eat, pay bills, or have a life in general if he could not work in the trade he was good in? Also he really didn’t work for the company long enough to learn any of the businesses secrets. I agree with the decision the courts made. Since I’ve Galveston County before, to me, it seemed small and if he lived there and didn’t have money to move he should have also thought carefully before signing the contract. To ease his burden and be able to live there he has to work and support himself and/or his family the courts agree with Mr.
OUTCOME: The court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, finding no abuse of discretion in the reduction of the duration of a covenant not to compete against appellee, former employee, where hardship to appellee by reinstatement of the expired injunction was a more onerous burden than was required to protect the business of appellant.
QUESTION: Was injunctive relief an appropriate remedy in this case? ANALYSIS: Yes, I think injunctive relief was an appropriate remedy. How did they (employer) expect Mr. Smith to eat, pay bills, or have a life in general if he could not work in the trade he was good in? Also he really didn’t work for the company long enough to learn any of the businesses secrets. I agree with the decision the courts made. Since I’ve Galveston County before, to me, it seemed small and if he lived there and didn’t have money to move he should have also thought carefully before signing the contract. To ease his burden and be able to live there he has to work and support himself and/or his family the courts agree with Mr.