### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT NAS HVILLE N ove m be r 16, 200 6 S es sio n
BFS R ET A IL AND 

### COMMERCI AL OPE RA TIONS , LLC v. C HAR LES SMITH
Appeal f romthe Chancer y Court for Davidson Cou nty No. 05-636-II Car ol McCoy, C hancellor

No. M2006- 00163-COA-R 3-CV - F iled on February 12, 2007

Na ti o n a l r e tail ti r e a n d a u to mo ti v e s e r v ic e c o rp o r a ti o n f il e d a c ti o n a g a in s t d is tric t man a g e r for violation of corpor ation’s cove nant not to compe te a f ter ma n a g er r esig ned and a cce pted new position with c o r p o r ati o n ’ s c o mpe titor. Trial court g rante d manag er’ s motion for summary judgme nt, finding that manag er had not violated the non-c ompete ag ree ment since mana g er’ s new position was loca ted outside the g eog raphic location in w hich he was previously employ ed by

corpor ation. Corporation appea led. Finding that the provisions of t h e co n t ra ct ar e not, as a matter of la w, limited to a g eog raphic component, we reve rse.
Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e nt of t he Cha nc e r y C our t R e ve r se d and Rem anded

W I L L I AM B. C A IN , J ., delivere d the opi nion of the court, in which P ATR I C I A J. C O T T RE LL , J ., joined. W I L L I AM C. K O CH , J R ., P.J ., M.S., filed a sepa rate concur

ring opinion.

Rob e rt E. B os ton , A nd re w S. Na y lor , Reb e kah J . Step he ns , Na sh vil le , Te nn e sse e , for the app e lla nt, B F S Re ta il a ndCom me rc ia l O pe ratio ns , L L C. Charles W. McElroy , Dudley M. West, Nashville, Tennessee , for the a ppellee, Cha

rles Smith.

OP IN ION

Mr. C h ar l es S m i t h b ega n wo rk i n g fo r B ri d gest one Firestone Reta il & Commercial Opera

tions (“B FRC”), a

corpor ation owning and oper ating over 2,000 reta il tire and automotive service stores
n a t i o n w i d e , i n O c t o b e r 1 9 8 9 a s a r e t a i l a s s o c i a t e i n M ar y l a n d

. M r

. S m i t h t h e r e a f t e r r e l o c a te d to Pitt sb ur g h, Pe nn sy lvania

in 1 99 0, wh e re he sp e nt the re ma ind e r o f h is c are e r w ith B F RC. Whil e in Pitt sburg h, Mr. Smith first worked as a service manag er then as an assistant manag er, be fore being promoted to store mana g er in 1991. M r. S m i t h became B FRC’s assistant district manag er of the P i t t s b u rgh d i s tri ct i n 2 0 0 1 an d d i s tri ct m an age r i n 2 0 0 3

. As d i s tri ct m an age r o f t h e P i t t s b u rgh dis tr ic t, M r. Smith w a s r e sp on sib le on ly fo r the pe rf ormanc e of

the sto re s lo c a te d w ith in h is d ist ri c t.-2-

As a c ondition of promotion, BFRC requir ed that Mr. Smith sign an e mploy ment ag ree ment containing a cove nant not to compete which prohibited Mr. Smit h, for a period of eig hteen months afte r termination, fr om competing with BF RC with respect to its “Company Business” in any

“ar ea wher e [he] worke d or had responsibilities”. On Marc h 7, 2005, Mr. Smith gave two wee ks notice of his re sig natio n a ndof

his int e nt t o a c c e pt a

ne w p os iti on wi th B F RC’ s c omp e tit or , T ir e Ki ng do m, as th e re gi o n al direc tor of sale s in Sout h Carolina. Mr. Smith’s new position require d direc t responsibilityfor twe nty -six stores in South Carolina and one store in Georg ia, as we ll as indirect
su pe rv iso ry

re sp on sib ili ty

fo r t we nty -f

ou r s tor e s in Cha

rl ott e , N orth C aro lin a

a ndfou r st ores i n Tallaha ssee, F lorida.

On Ma rc h 9, 20 05 , B F RC f

ile d a n a c tio n a g a ins t Mr . Sm ith , s e e kin g to e njo in M r. Smith from working for Tire King dom. BF RC obtained an ex pa rte re str a ini ng or de r p re ve nti ng Mr . Sm ith from commenc ing his ne w job but after a preliminary injunction hearing on April 8, 2005, the trial court de nied B FRC’s motion for a pr eliminary injunction. Mr. S mith filed a motion for summary jud g me nt o n Se pte mbe r 1 5, 20 05 , a rg uin g that he ha d n ot b re a c he d h is n on -c omp e te a g re e me nt w ith BF RC since he was not w orking for a competitor in the same g eog raphic loca t i o n as h e w as employ ed by

BF RC. The trial court g rante d Mr. Smith’s motion on November 22, 2005, finding that (1) Mr. Sm ith d id n o t b r e a c h h is n o n

- c o mp e te a g r e e me n t b y w o rk in g f o r T ir e K in g d o m in a g eog raphic location outside the Pit t s b u rgh d i strict; and (2) e ven if the non- compete a g ree ment protec ted a g ain s t M r

. Smit

h ’ s in f rin g ement of B FRC’s substantive rig hts, the non-compete provision
was ove rly

broad a s a matter of

Tenne ssee law . BF RC appealed.

I. Pur su a nt t o Ru le 56 of

the Te nn e sse e Rul e s o f C ivi l Pr oc e du re , s umm ary judgm e nt i s appropriate whe n “ther e is no g enuine issue as to any materia l f act and

... the moving party is entitled to a judg ment as a matter of law.” The court must take the strong est leg itimate view of the e vidence in f a vo r o f the no n- mov ing pa rt y , r e so lve a ll r e a so na

ble inf e re nc e s in fa vo r of that pa rt y , d isc arda ll counter vailing e vidence , and if ther e is a dispute as to a ny materia l f act, summary judgme nt cannot be g rante d. B

y r d v
. H all , 8 47 S.W .2d 208, 210-11 (Te nn.1993). B eca use summary

judgme nt involves only questions of l aw and no fac tual disputes, no presumption of corr ectne ss attache s to the l o we r court’s de cision and the judg ment is reviewe d using a pure de novo standard. Co wd e n v. So v ra n B an k

/Ce ntr al S ou th , 816 S.W .2d 741, 744 (Tenn.1991)

.

II. The interpr etation and c onstruction of a pla in and unambig uous written contra ct is a question of law for determination by

the court. W

ill iam so n Co. Bro ad

. Co., In c . v . I

nte rm e dia Pa rtn e rs , 987 S.W .2d 550, 552 (Tenn.Ct.App.1998). I t is the duty of the court to enforc e the c ontrac t acc ording to its pl ain terms, Eleogramme nos v. Standard Life Ins. Co. , 149 S.W .2d 69 (Tenn.1941) , and the lang uag e used in the c ontrac t must be taken and unde rstood in its pl ain, ordinary and popular sense. Guardian Lif

e Ins. Co. of Am. v. R ichardson , 129 S.W .2d 11 0 7 , 1 1 1 6-17 (Te nn.Ct.App.1939). Howeve r, “the car dinal rule for interpre tation of contra cts is to asce rtain the intention of the pa rties
an d t o gi v e ef

fec t to that intention as best can be done consistent with leg al principles.” P e tty v.-3-

Sloan , 2 7 7 S

. W

. 2 d 3 5 5 , 3 6 0 ( T e n n

. 1 9 5 5 )

. C o u r t s m a y d e t e r m i n e t h e i n t e n t i o n o f t h e p ar t i e s “ b y a fair c onstruct ion of the terms a nd provisions of the contra ct, by the subject matter

to which it has ref ere nce, by the circ umstances of the particular tra nsaction g iving rise to the question, and by the construction place d on the ag ree ment by the parties in c arry ing out its t erms.” Penske Truck Leasing Co., L.P. v. Huddleston, 795 S.W .2d 669, 671 (Tenn.1990)

.

I n the pre sent ca se, the trial court determined that the covenant not to c ompete in Mr. Smit h’s
e mpl oyme nt a g re e me nt w a s pla in an d una mbi g uo us a ndthat th e c on tr a c t di d n ot p ro hib it M r. Smith from wor king for Tire King dom as the re g ional direc tor of sale s in Sout h Carolina. The covena nt
no t to c omp e te sp e c if

ic a lly pr ov ide d in pe rt ine nt p art :

12. POST-EMPL OYMENT: NO CO MPE TITI ONWI TH TH E CO MPA NY ’S B USI NE SS F o r a p e r i o d o f e i g h t e e n ( 1 8 ) m o n t h s f

o l l o w i n g yo u r

d e p ar t u r e f

r o mt h e C o m p a n y, unless y our termination is due to an involuntary reduc tion of for ce y ou ag ree not to: (a) enter

into or eng ag e in any

business which compe tes with the Comp an y ’s B us ine ss;

... (e ) F or

pu rp os e s of su bp ara g ra

ph s ( a ) thr ou g h ( d) on ly , th e Compa ny ’s B us ine ss inc lud e s o nly

tho se areas where y ou worke d or had r esponsi biliti es at the time of y our sepa

ration fr om the Company or at any time during the five ( 5) y ear period prior

to y our sepa

ration. (Empha sis added).

The trial c ourt found that the lang uag e of the n o n -c o m p ete ag ree ment, when g iven its plain and ordinary meaning , limit ed the geographic or territorial area in w hich Mr. Smith could work afte r h i s s ep ar at i o n fr o m BFR C

. S i n ce M r. S m i t h l i m i t ed h i s em p l o y m en twi t h BFR C t o t h e P i t t s b u rgh district and his p o s i tion with Tire King dom included re sponsibili ties primarily in South C arolina, the trial court found t hat M r. S mith did not brea ch his non-compe te ag ree ment by working for Tire Ki ng do m in a

g e og ra ph ic loc a tio n o uts ide the Pitt sb ur g h d ist ri c t.

Ho we ve r, B F RC a

rg ue d th a t th e no n- c omp e te a g re e me nt wa s n ot i nte nd e d to g e og ra ph ic a lly li m i t M r. Smit h’s post-employ ment opportunities but rather, limit the substantive field of
re sp on sib ili tie s e nc omp a sse d in Mr . Sm ith ’s w or k f or B F RC. Ac c or din g to B F RC, the B F RC districts do not operate i n a vacuum and thus , business information and trade knowledg e is share d
natio na lly . B F RC all e g e d tha t it a llo we d Mr. Smith a c c e ss t o c on fi de nti a l bu sin e ss i nf orma tio n v ia B F RC’ s in tr a ne t sy ste m, i nc lud ing c or e op e ratio n p ri nc ipl e s, ma na g e me nt s tr ateg ie s, e c on omi c fo re c a sts , ma

rk e tin g ini tiativ e s, a nde c on omi c pe rf orma nc e data , on a natio nw ide sc a le du ri ng his
e mpl oyme nt at B F RC. Th e re fo re , s imp ly lim iti ng Mr . Sm ith ’s po st- e mpl oyme nt i nit ia tiv e s to g e og ra ph ic a l re g ion s wou ld fa il to ful ly pr ote c t BF RC’ s pro prie tary ri g hts

. I ns te a d, B F RC c la ims-4-

that the non-c ompete ag ree ment prohibited Mr. Smi th from entering into or e ng ag ing in the “re sear ch, deve lopment, manufac ture, mar keting , sale and distribution of ti res” for a p eriod of eig hteen months following his depa rture f rom BF RC si nce those wer e the f unctional ar eas f

or which he wa s employ ed by

BF RC.

I t is well established that in interp re ting a contra ct, the court should consider the e ntire contra ct, Cocke Co. Bd. of Highway Comm’rs v. Newport Util. Bd., 690 S

. W

. 2 d 2 3 1 , 237 (Tenn.1985) , and the “ situ at i o n i n v o lving the pa rties, the natur e of the business in which they are eng ag ed and the subject matter to whic h the contra ct re lates.” Sto v all v . D att e l, 619 S.W .2d 125, 127 (Tenn.Ct.App.1981). “ No sing le clause in a contra ct is to be viewe d in isolation; rathe r, the c ontrac t is to be ‘viewe d from beg inning to end and all its terms must p as s i n re v i ew, for one c lause may modify , limit or illumi nate a nother.’” Fr izz e ll Co ns tr. Co. , I nc . v . G atl inb ur

g, L.L. C. , 9 S.W .3d 79, 8 5 (T en n

. 1 9 9 9 ) ( q u o t i n g Cocke County Bd. of Highway Comm'rs v. Newport Uti ls. Bd., 690 S.W .2d 231, 237 (Tenn.1985) ).

I n reje cting t h e ar gu m ent of B FRC that the re striction of competitive employ ment by Mr. Smit h during the eig hteen months following his resig nation was not limit ed as a matter of l aw to a g eog raphic al limitation, t he trial c ourt held:

The Court re

jects the arg uments made by BF RC that parag raph 12( e) of the Employ ment Ag ree ment does not constitute a geog raphic al l imitation, and that the non-compe t e p ro v i s ions apply without reg ard to ter

ritory , limit ed only

by the
su bs ta nti ve fi e lds of

re sp on sib ili tie s encom pas sed i n M r. Smith’ s w or k f or B F RC. I n reje cting these a

rg uments, the Court relies pr i m ar ily on the plain and or dinary meaning of the wor ds used, and the pla in g eog raphic connotations convey ed by the phrase “ar eas w here [he] worke d or had responsibilities.” I n addition, the Court finds that acc epting BF RC’s arg ument that the limitation m eans something other than the g e og ra ph ic are a wh e re Mr . Smith wo rk e d, wo uld inj e c t an unr e a so na ble a mbi g uit y into the contrac t, where no ambig uity otherwise e x ists. The Court w ill not i nject an
a mbi g uit y wh e re no ne e xists , a nda c c or din g ly , r e je c ts B F RC’ s a

rg ume nt.

Furthermore , even if

the Court wer e to a cce pt B FRC’s arg ument that its noncompete pr ovisions contain no territorial or geo graphic limit ations (which it does
no t) the re su lt wo uld be a c ov e na nt no t to c omp e te that, i n th e Cou rt ’s op ini on , w ou ld be ov e rl y br oa d. Un de r T e nn e sse e la w, c ov e na nts no t to c omp e te mus t be re a so na ble in sc ope, and with r espec t to time and territoria l limits, must be no b ro ad er than
nece ssary to protect the employ er’ s leg itimate business interests. See, e .g., Vantage Te c hn olo gy, LLC

v . Cr os s , 1 7 S. W. 3 d 6 3 7 , 6 4 7 ( T e n n

. A p p . 1999), p erm. to app. denied (Tenn. 2000). I n the ca se at ba r, the c ontrac t construction urg ed by the plaintiff would create a contr act that is over broad, and which could not be e nforc ed based on the fac ts in thi s rec ord.-5- I n c on c lus ion , the c on tr a c t a t iss ue in thi s c a se is c le ar andun a mbi g uo us in the lim itatio n o f the te rrito ri a l sc op e of the c ov e na nt no t to c omp e te to tho se g eog raphic are as whe re Mr . Smit h worke d or had r esponsibiliti es for BF RC. Mr. Smit h worke d and had r esponsibiliti es on ly w it h in B F RC ’ s Pi tt s b urg h District, which does not include a ny

of the a rea s where he now works or has responsibilities for Tire King dom, I nc.

Whil e this rea soning of

the trial court might well be unimpeacha ble foll owing a trial on the merits, we a

re not de aling at this stage with appellate r eview f ollowing a trial on the m erits but rathe r app e llate re vie w o f a

tr ia l c ou rt

g rant o f sum mary jud g me nt. A r e vie w o f p ara g ra ph s 1 1 a nd12 in isolation from all other provisions of the c ontrac t mig ht yield to a logic al conc lusion that parag raph 12, like para g raph 11, was a g eog raphic al l imitation since any other interpr etation would evidenc e no contra st betwee n para g raph 11 and 12 and a s conce ded by counsel for

BF RC, render pa

rag raph 12 unnece ssary . We are not at liberty to c onstrue para g raphs 11 and 12 in isolation from all the other provisions of the contra ct. Frizzell Const r. Co., Inc. , 9 S.W .3d at 85.

Pertinent provisions of the contra ct ar e:

E m p l o ym e n ta g r e e m e n t s ar e v e r y c o m m o n i n b u s i n e s s , a n d c e r t a i n l y i n o u r i n d u s tr y. Th e pu rp os e of

th is Em pl oyme nt A g re e me nt i s to pr ote c t ou r C omp a ny a ndits employ ees. I nformation is our compe titive advantag e. When information about our Compa ny ’s pr od uc ts, se rv ic e s, or int e lli g e nc e of

a ny kin d, is i na

pp ro pria te ly disclosed, our Company

and our employ ees are in peril. There fore , this Agr eeme nt is important for the sec urity of B ridg estone/F irestone and it s future, a s well as the fu tur e of ou r e mpl oy e e s a ndthe ir

famil ie s.

We take g reat p ri d e in our employ ees at Bridg estone/F irestone. We have worke d ha rdto i de nti fy the be st ta le nt av a ila ble

. We wa nt to ke e p our ta le nte d p e op le wi th us. When BF S is no l ong er the b es t fit for a person, howe ver, w e must make sure that our information remains with the Company even afte r the pe rson has take n other
e mpl oyme nt o pp ortun iti e s.

Your sig nature on t h i s Agreement is a condition of y our transf er or promotion into/withi n an exempt salary level position.

. . .

1. DEF I NI TI ONS-6- F o r t h e p u rp o s e s o f

t h i s E m p l o ym e n t

A g r e e m e n t , t h e f

o l l o w i n g d e f

i n i t i o n s ap p l y:

. . .
(b) COMPANY’S BUSINE S S

. The Company ’s B usiness is the resea rch, development, manuf

actur e, mar

keting , s ale and distribution of ti res, tire
c omp on e nts , p olyme rs us ed in tir e s o r e lse wh e re , r oo fi ng ma te ri a ls, a ir spring s, or any

other produc ts or services of the Company or conte mplated b y t h e C o m p a n y.

( c ) CONFI DENTI AL AN D P R OP R I E T AR Y TR ADE SECRET I NFOR M ATI ON. Confidential and pr oprietary trade secr et information includes, without any limit ation, the Company ’s re sear ch and de velopment information, unique selling , manufa ct u ri ng and ser vicing methods and bu sin e ss t e c hn iqu e s, man ufac tu ri ng, t rai ni ng, s ervi ce an d b us ine ss m anu a ls, training course s and other tr aining and ins tructional m aterials, vendor a nd product information, customer and pr ospective cust omer lists, other
c us tom e r andpr os pe c tiv e c us tom er inf orma tio n a ndoth e r b us ine ss information, as we ll as any o t h er i nformation that constitutes a “ trade
se c re t” a s th a t te rm

is d e fi ne d u nd e r the Un if orm T ra de Se c re t A c t.

. . .

8. ACCESS TO CONF I DENTIAL AND PROPRI ETARY INFO RMATI ON

Confidential an d p roprieta ry trade secr et information is deve loped by the Compa ny thr ou g h s ub sta nti a l e xpe nd itu re s of tim e , e ff ort a nd mon e y
. I t is v a lua ble and unique pr operty

of the Company . I n ord er to protect the business of the Company , y ou ag ree that any confide ntial and prop ri etary trade secr et information that y ou rec eive d u ri ng y our employ ment with the Company must be kept confide ntial both during a nd afte r y our employ ment. You also under stand and a g ree that beca use of this , it is nece ssary for the protec tion of t he busi ness of the Company that y ou no t c omp e te wi th the Compa ny du ri ng y ou r e mpl oyme nt andno t c omp e te wi th the Compa ny ’s B us ine ss fo r a re a so na ble pe ri odof

tim e a ft e r y ou r e mpl oyme nt,
a s d e sc ri be d in Se c tio ns 11 a nd12 of thi s A g re e me nt.

9. NO DI SCL OSU RE-7- You ag ree to keep in strict conf idence any

confide ntial and prop ri et ar y trade
s e c r e ti n f o r m a t i o n t h a tyo u l e ar n d u r i n g yo u r e m p l o ym e n tr e g ar d i n g t h e C o m p a n y, the Compa ny ’s B us ine ss, its c us tom e rs , v e nd or s, or a ny oth e r thi rd pa

rt ie s. Yo u w ill not, d i re ct l yor indirec tly , at any time during or af

ter y our employ ment with the Company , disclose or use any confide ntial and proprietary trade secr et information
o wned by the Company

or any third party

which y ou learn of as a

result of y our ac ti v it ie s o n b e h a lf o f th e Co mp a n y n o matt e r w h e n o r h o w th e in f o r mation was acquir ed. You a g ree that this information, no matter whethe r written, sp o k en , or reme mbere d, cannot be disclosed for any unauthorized rea son.

. . .

11

. DU RINGEM PL OY ME NT : NO COMPETI TI ON WI TH THE COMPANY

Du ri ng y ou r e mpl oyme nt, y ou a g re e no t to c omp e te wi th the Compa ny a ny wh e re in the world. This includes, but is not limi ted to an ag ree ment not to:

(a) enter into or eng ag e in any

business which compe tes with the Company ’s B us ine ss;

(b) solicit customers, business, patronag e or or ders f or or the sa le of a ny

products or
se rv ic e s in c omp e tition wi th the Compa ny ’s B us ine ss;

(c) divert, entice , or take away any customers, business, patrona g e or orde rs of the Company ’s B usiness or attempt to do so; or

(d) prom o t e or assist, financ ially or otherw ise, any

person, f

irm, association, partne rship, corpor ation or other entity eng ag ed in any business which compe tes wi th the Compa ny ’s B us ine ss.

12

. POS T- EM PL OY ME NT : NO CO MPE TITI ONWI TH TH E CO MPA NY ’S B USI NE SS

F o r a p e r i o d o f e i g h t e e n ( 1 8 ) m o n t h s f o l l o w i n g yo u r

d e p ar t u r e f

r o mt h e C o m p a n y, unless y our t ermination is due to an involuntary reduc tion of forc e y ou ag ree not to:-8-

(a) enter into or eng ag e in any

business which compe tes with the Company ’s B us ine ss;

(b) solicit customers, business, patronag e or or ders f or o r s al e of any

products and
se rv ic e s in c omp e tition wi th the Compa ny ’s B us ine ss;

(c) divert, entice or otherw ise take a way any customers, business, patr onag e or order s of the Company ’s B usiness or attempt to do so; or

(d) promote or a ssist, financially or otherw ise, any

person, fi rm , association, pa rt ne rs hip , c or

po ratio n o r oth e r e ng a g e d in a ny bu sin e ss w hic h c omp e te s w ith the Compa ny ’s B us ine ss.

(e ) F or pu rp os e s o f s ub pa

ra g ra ph s ( a ) thr ou g h ( d) on ly , the Co mp a ny ’s B us ine ss includes only

those are as whe re y ou worke d or had responsibilities at the time of y our sepa ration fr om the Company or at a ny time during the five ( 5) y ear period prior to y our sepa

ration.

. . .

14. POSTP ONEMENT O F F UTURE EMPL OYMENT

Be fore acc epting post-employ ment with any person, firm, association, partnership,
or oth e r e nti ty

tha t is in c omp e tit ion wi th the Compa ny ’s B us ine ss, a s d e sc ri be d in Section 12, y ou ag ree to provide to the Company verifiab l e ev idence of a w ritten offe r of e mploy ment and written proof of y our inten t t o acc ept the off er. The C o m p a n y t h e n m a y e l e c tt o p e r m i tyo u t o p u r s u e t h e e m p l o ym e n to p p o r t u n i t y. Alternatively , the Company may elec t, due to y our knowledg e of co n fi d enti al and proprieta ry trade secr et information, to re quire y ou to postpone the employ ment for
e ig hte e n ( 18 ) m on ths

.

I f p os tpo ne me nt o f e mpl oyme nt i s r e qu ir e d , the Compa ny wi ll p ro vid e y ou wi th p os te mpl oyme nt pa y me nts . A po st- e mpl oyme nt p a y me nt i s a mon thl y pa y me nt m a de to yo u t h a ti s e q u a l t o yo u r f

i n a l m o n t h l y p a y p l u s 2 5 % o f t h a t s a m e m o n t h l y b a s e p a y. Pension and/or other r et i re m ent benefits and any state unemploy ment benef its y ou rec eive during this period will be deducted f rom these pa y ments. Additionally , to the extent that y ou are elig ible to rec eive any pension income or pay ments, and y ou elec t
or c ho o s e t o d e f

e r y o u r r e c e i p to f

s u c h p e n s i o n i n c o m e o r p a y m e n t s , t h e p o s t--9- employ ment pay ment will be reduc ed by the pension i ncome or

pay ments that y ou wo uld ha ve re c e ive d if

y ou ha d n ot c ho se n to de fe r y ou r r e c e ipt of pe ns ion inc ome or pa yme nts

.
The Company expects y ou to ma ke a g ood faith eff

ort to obta in e mploy ment with a non-compe ting business while y ou are rec eiving post-employ ment pay men ts. I f such
a job is found, y our post-employ ment pay ments will be reduc ed by any earning f rom y our new position. Also, during the e ighte en (18) month period, y ou must provide the Company with quarte rly written documentation, which demonstrates y our g ood faith e ff orts t o f indoth e r e mpl oyme nt.

I f at any time during the eig hteen (18) month pe riod y ou reque st outplaceme nt assistance , the Company

will provide it to y ou, at the Company ’s expense.

When these provisions are considere d toge ther, a nd not in isol ation, para g raph 12(e) doe s not, as a matter

of law, r equire a construc tion lim ited to ge og raphic are as, but m ay re asonablybe interpre ted to include products are as. I ndeed, one might seriously assert that para g raph 14, standing alone, c an justify

postponement of future employ ment for an eig hteen- month period following the resig nation of Mr. Smith. I t is supported by an indepe ndent consider ation requiring BF RC to pay Mr . Smith 12 5% of his ba se sa lary du ri ng the e ig hte e n- mon th p e ri od . Wh ile thi s in c ome ma y pa le in comparison to his overa ll income with BF RC, when base pay is added to commission income, no rule of la w re quires that the substantial conside ration nec essary to support the bi l at eral obliga tion of a c ontrac t must be of equal dig nity betwee n the part i es or is subject to a c ompara tive value analy sis. Fa rre ll v . Th ird Nat ’l Ba nk in N as hv ill e , 101 S.W .2d 158, 163 (Tenn.Ct.App.1936).

The postponement of employ ment under para g raph 14 of the Ag ree ment has nothing to do with ge og raphy , b u t is “due to y our knowledg e of c onfidential and pr oprietary trade secr et information.”

Wh et h er p arag raph 14 c ould stand alone is not determinative of the issue in this case , but when pa rag raph 14 is conside red in c onjunction with para g raph 12(e), the phrase “those area s where y ou wo rk e d o r h a d r e sp on sib ili tie s a t th e tim e of y ou r s e pa

ratio n” is su bje c t to a

re a so na ble construction that is other than g eog raphic . Summary judgme nt is thus i mproper.

Th e Sup re me Cou rt

of Te nn e sse e lon g a g o he ld that a con tr a c t must be c on sid e re d a s a wh ole and:-10-

in the lig ht o f the c ir c ums ta nc e s su rr ou nd ing its makin g , w ith the primary pu rp os e of asc erta ining just what wa s within the contemplation of t he parties. As expressed by Edwar d Be al, Eng lish author and scholar, in his Cardinal Rules of I nterpre tation (2d Ed.) pa g e 71, “T he purpose of interpr eting an instrument is t o s ee wh at is the int e nti on e xpre ssed bythe wo rd s u se d. I f f ro m th e imp e rf

e c tio n o f l a ng ua g e it i s impossibl e to know what the intention is without inqui ring further , then see what the circ umstances we re with r efe renc e to w hich the words wer e used, and w hat was the ob je c t, a pp e ari ng fr om tho se c ir c ums ta nc e s, wh ic h the per so ns us ing the m ha d in view.”

Holmes v . Elder , 94 S.W .2d 390, 391-92 (Te nn.1936).

Whe the r the c omp e tit ive re stric tio ns of the Ag re e me nt are g e og ra ph ic a l or inc lud e pr od uc ts
are as i nvolves materia l questions of fact as to t he intentions of the parties. The judg ment of the trial court g ranting summary

judgme nt to Defe ndant is reve rs ed an d t he ca se re manded f or further proce eding s. Costs of the cause a re a ssessed to Appellee

.

___________________________________ WI LL I AM B. CAIN, J UDGE