Case ID: or-app_83/html/0322-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Argued and submitted June 6, 1986,
    reversed and remanded January 21, 1987
    RENZEMA et al, Appellants, v. NICHOLS, Respondent.
    
    ([ AXXXX-XXXXX ]; CA A36474)
    731 P2d 1048
    Roger J. Leo, Portland, argued the cause for appellants. With him on the briefs was Harper, Leo and Hollander, Portland.
    Henry Kantor, Portland, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Delo, Kantor & Stamm, Portland. Henry Kantor, and Delo, Kantor & Stamm resigned as attorneys for respondent on September 19,1986.
    Before Richardson, Presiding Judge, and Newman and Deits, Judges.
    PER CURIAM
   PER CURIAM

Plaintiffs and defendant operate towing services. Plaintiffs brought this action to enjoin defendant from engaging in business in violation of a noncompetition agreement entered into by the parties in May, 1983. Under the agreement, plaintiffs paid $4,000 to defendant for his promise not to compete against them for a period of five years. Defendant moved to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint, because the agreement makes no reference to geographic restrictions. The trial judge granted defendant’s motion.

A noncompetition agreement which fails to set out a limitation as to territory is not void as a matter of law. If possible, the noncompetition clause should be interpreted so as to make the extent of its operation reasonable. Lavey/Moore/Brown v. Edwards, 264 Or 331, 334, 505 P2d 342 (1973). What is reasonable depends on the facts. See Kelite Prod., Inc. v. Brandt et al, 206 Or 636, 655, 294 P2d 320 (1956).

Reversed and remanded.