ruling on that motion were the result of a combination of undisputed facts and the application of well established law in those undisputed facts in the circuit court granted the motion because the language of agreement it not prohibit my client from entering into a business a business relationship with us so at the end because the circuit court found that my client's conduct in the conduct of its employees did not amount constantine or customer broker when the language of a contract such as this one is clear and unambiguous construction of that contract is a matter of law the court must construe the meeting the oath that contacted rough they went to that meeting where they discussed in detail the different routes and possible routes for those trucking the services and this was a solicitation is the act or an instant instance of requesting or are seeking to obtain something so isn't it just as reasonable to honor that the reasonable interpretation of that term no really suggests that there can only be one solicitor once there is this invitation any other kind of that contract contact whether it's negotiation or exchang solicitation the other important thing to remember in this context is that it is vital in illinois twenty spam that none compete in non solicitation agreements and clauses such as this one cover no more than the reasonable import of their language and does not allow for this fancy reading of such restrictive covenants now with those interpret guidelines in mind we argued in our motion that the necessary the plain the narrow interpretation the phrase carrier will not solicit traffic from q t s as agreement did not prohibit mark thompson from except thing work enter into a contract with us so it's up and we've gone through the the ever submitted any proposals or bids or ever contacted janice case or anyone in us soak up without first being invite in solicited to do so instead if you ts this agreement which should be narrowly appropriated and pain construed prohibits mark thompson from soliciting it prohibits him from being that person who without an invitation to do so  agreement with this former employee and this part of the agreement seller's agreed not to solicit either directly or indirectly any current or former customers of his employer for a period of two years and so started his own competing business and his employer's successor radar excavating brought a lawsuit against them when it found out that a new business was actually doing work with past customers so undisputed evidence showed that the customers approached sellers and his new business into of any kind of business relationship the trial court rejected radar's interpretation and dismiss the claim noting that the contract did not define the word solicitation the georgia court of appeals turned to the definition of the word as it is stated in standard dictionaries in doing so the court rejected radars arguing argument that the term solicit should be interpreted more broadly just because of the inclusion of the term incorrectly and i think our cases are facts or even better than than their radar case simply because the term indirectly isn't anywhere in hue ts as agreement in the john group versus consumer interstate court in new york or found a plain meaning of the term solicit connotes an act of requesting or sicking seeking a particular object or and and therefore in order for honour's the argument there is that that's the reasonable narrow plain inclusion of that term i was thinking of examples of the other day and reminded my wife entering our house even though we called them and we invited him or would he be free to come in and do his job and that i think goes towards the can only be one solicitor and that's that that's really what happened in this case janice casey was very persistent over a period of many months and wanted mark comps in trucking to submit rates which was us so a close customer you of way of dealing with trucking there can be a bright line rule because those are usually subject to manipulation especially in cases such as this one and i think the carhart at court points to the fact that you usually don't want that to be a while there shouldn't be a bright line rule i'm not advocating for one but i think it's the main factor in determining that's the kind of yes i'm focused on one factor and that is who plays the  send out a blast email to customers former customers in most of these other cases there's usually some kind of solicitation some kind of a letter an advertisement a phone call trucking answered the phone call several times he did nothing to convince janice casey that she should call him his act he was very passive in the way had any contact with all her whatsoever in council try to bring that out in induct resistance you know when you talk about the christmas parties how long have you known each other and janice casey's contact  her contacting mark thompson was really out of the blue he did nothing to cause for the solicitor i think perhaps the most point case is the mono lecture group case  an employee agreed not to solicit the employer's customers and i will of the friends might respond that i think it's the one that's most on point but just to finish up this fight the fact that eliminates the need for the word solicit in the agreement why not just say you can't enter into an agreement you can't work for yet they use the word solicit and now they want to eliminate it making it