[J-40-2015] 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

SAYLOR, C.J., EAKIN, BAER, TODD, STEVENS, JJ. 

DAVID M. SOCKO, 

 Appellee 

 v. 

MID-ATLANTIC SYSTEMS OF CPA, 

INC., 

 Appellant 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 142 MAP 2014 

Appeal from the Order of the Superior 

Court dated May 13, 2014 at No. 1223 

MDA 2013, affirming the Order of the 

Court of Common Pleas of York County, 

Civil Division, dated October 15, 2012 at 

No. 2012-SU-001608-44 

ARGUED: May 6, 2015 

OPINION 

MADAME JUSTICE TODD DECIDED: November 18, 2015

In this appeal by allowance, we consider an issue of first impression: whether 

the enforcement of an employment agreement containing a restrictive covenant not to 

compete, entered into after the commencement of employment, may be challenged by 

an employee for a lack of consideration, where the agreement, by its express terms, 

states that the parties “intend to be legally bound,” which language implicates the 

insulating effect of the Uniform Written Obligations Act (“UWOA”).1 In light of our 

Commonwealth’s long history of disfavoring restrictive covenants, and the mandate that 

covenants not to compete entered into after the commencement of employment must 

be accompanied by new and valuable consideration — a benefit or change in 

 

1

 Act of May 13, 1927, P.L. 985, No. 475, § 1 (33 P.S. § 6). 
[J-40-2015] - 2 

employment status — we conclude an employee is not precluded from challenging such 

an agreement executed pursuant to the UWOA. Thus, we affirm the order of the 

Superior Court. 

The facts underlying this appeal are not in dispute. Appellant Mid-Atlantic 

Systems of CPA, Inc. (“Mid-Atlantic”) is in the business of providing basement 

waterproofing services. Mid-Atlantic hired Appellee David Socko (“Socko”) in March 

2007 as a salesperson. At this time, Socko executed a two-year employment contract 

containing a covenant not to compete. In February 2009, Socko resigned from his 

employment with Mid-Atlantic, but the company rehired him four months later, in June 

2009. At his time of rehire, Socko signed a new employment agreement containing 

another two-year covenant not to compete. 

While still employed by Mid-Atlantic, on December 28, 2010, Socko signed a 

third, more restrictive, agreement, entitled “the Non-Competition Agreement” 

(“Agreement”), which, by its terms, superseded all prior agreements. Pursuant to the 

Agreement, which is at the heart of his appeal, Socko was not permitted to compete 

with Mid-Atlantic for two years after the termination of his employment in any of the 

following locations: Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Delaware, Maryland, New 

Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York, Virginia, West Virginia, or any other jurisdiction in 

which Mid-Atlantic did business. The Agreement also expressly provided for the 

application of Pennsylvania law, and stated that the parties intended to be “legally 

bound.” 

On January 16, 2012, Socko resigned from his employment with Mid-Atlantic 

and, a few weeks later, accepted a position with Pennsylvania Basement 

Waterproofing, located in Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, which was a competitor of MidAtlantic. Approximately one month later, Mid-Atlantic informed Socko’s new employer 
[J-40-2015] - 3 

of the terms of Socko’s prior employment with Mid-Atlantic, attached a copy of the 

Agreement, and threatened litigation. Ten days later, Pennsylvania Basement 

Waterproofing terminated Socko’s employment. 

As a result of his termination, on April 13, 2012, Socko filed a Complaint and 

Action for Declaratory Judgment against Mid-Atlantic in the York County Court of 

Common Pleas. In support thereof, Socko filed a motion for partial summary judgment, 

asserting that the non-competition clause in the Agreement was unenforceable, as it 

was not supported by sufficient consideration. It was not disputed by the parties that 

the Agreement was signed during the course of Socko’s employment, and that Socko 

did not receive any benefit or any change in his existing employment status in exchange 

for signing the Agreement. Mid-Atlantic, however, citing the parties’ pledge in the 

Agreement to be “legally bound,” contended that the UWOA did not allow Socko to 

challenge the validity of the terms of the Agreement on the basis of a lack of 

consideration.2

The trial court granted Socko’s motion for partial summary judgment, offering in a 

well-written opinion, that there was a want of consideration in exchange for Socko’s 

execution of the Agreement after he had commenced his employment. Further, the 

court reasoned that the mere intent by Socko, as expressed in the Agreement, to be 

“legally bound,” did not constitute adequate consideration under the UWOA.3

 

2

 Pursuant to the dictates of the UWOA, a written promise “shall not be invalid or 

unenforceable for lack of consideration, if the writing also contains an additional express 

statement, in any form of language, that the signer intends to be legally bound.” 33 P.S. 

§ 6. 

3

 Socko also asserted claims against Mid-Atlantic pursuant to the Pennsylvania Wage 

Payment and Collection Law, 43 P.S. § 260.3. These claims were settled and 

discontinued on June 12, 2013. 
[J-40-2015] - 4 

On appeal, a unanimous panel of the Superior Court, in a thorough and scholarly 

published opinion authored by Judge Christine Donohue, affirmed the trial court’s 

granting of Socko’s motion for partial summary judgment. Socko v. Mid-Atlantic 

Systems of CPA, Inc., 99 A.3d 928 (Pa. Super. 2014). After tracing the history of the 

treatment, and disfavor of, restrictive covenants in Pennsylvania, the court explained 

that, when an employee enters into an employment contract subsequent to the 

commencement of employment, which contains a covenant not to compete, the 

covenant must be supported by new consideration in the form of a benefit to the 

employee or a beneficial change to his or her employment status. 

The court went on to consider the effect of the UWOA in light of the substantial 

common law public policy disfavoring restrictive covenants. The court acknowledged 

that the statute provided that a written promise shall not be invalid or unenforceable for 

lack of consideration if the writing also contains an express statement that the signer 

“intends to be legally bound,” 33 P.S. § 6, and that Pennsylvania courts have interpreted 

this section to mean that, in certain circumstances, a written agreement containing the 

express statement to be legally bound is not void for lack of consideration. 

Nevertheless, the Superior Court observed that, while, typically, and under the UWOA, 

courts will not inquire as to the adequacy of consideration, the area of restrictive 

covenants in employment contracts is an exception to this general rule. Importantly, the 

court pointed out that, while our Court has held that a contract under seal imports 

consideration which a party is not permitted to deny, such a seal is deemed inadequate 

consideration to support a covenant in restraint of trade; furthermore, the Superior Court 

reasoned that the seal and the UWOA had the same legal effect — to import 

consideration into a contract and eliminate the need for evidence of consideration. 
[J-40-2015] - 5 

Thus, the court concluded that for a covenant not to compete to be enforceable, 

an employee must receive actual and valuable consideration for signing an employment 

agreement containing such a restrictive covenant, and that contract language “agreeing 

to be legally bound,” which satisfies the UWOA, nevertheless fails to provide the 

employee an actual benefit, and, therefore, is inadequate to support the enforcement of 

such a covenant. As Mid-Atlantic did not provide actual and valuable consideration to 

Socko when he executed the Agreement, the Superior Court concluded that the trial 

court properly found the Agreement to be unenforceable. 

Mid-Atlantic filed a petition for allowance of appeal, which we granted to address 

the following question: whether an employment agreement containing a restrictive 

covenant not to compete, entered into after the commencement of employment, is 

unenforceable for lack of consideration where the employer provided the employee with 

no benefit or change in employment status at the time of execution, but where the 

agreement expressly states that the parties “intend to be legally bound” by its terms. 

See Socko v. Mid-Atlantic Systems of CPA, Inc., 105 A.3d 659 (Pa. 2014) (order).4 As 

 

4

 We granted allocatur on three issues, as raised by Mid-Atlantic, but these issues more 

accurately represent sub-arguments pertaining to the singular issue before the Court. 

The issues on which we granted appeal are: 

1) Did the Superior Court misconstrue the [UWOA] 

considering the UWOA is not a "substitute for consideration," 

nor is it intended to "rectify a lack of consideration" as the 

Superior Court asserts, but instead, is a statute that merely 

prevents a party to a written agreement in which the party 

expresses an intention to be legally bound from later 

challenging that validity of the contract based upon lack of 

consideration? 

(2) Did the Superior Court erroneously rely upon allegedly 

analogous "seal" cases to support its determination that the 

UWOA does not provide consideration for a non-competition 

(continuedL) 
[J-40-2015] - 6 

the issue before us concerns the construction of the UWOA, and, thus, raises a pure 

question of law, our standard of review is de novo, and our scope of review is plenary. 

DEP v. Cumberland Coal Resources, LP, 102 A.3d 962, 970 (Pa. 2014); Buffalo Twp. v. 

Jones, 813 A.2d 659, 664 n.4 (Pa. 2002). 

Mid-Atlantic’s primary argument is that the Superior Court improperly determined 

that the UWOA serves as “consideration, or a substitute for consideration” and that the 

statute intended to “rectify a lack of consideration.” Appellant’s Brief at 15. Mid-Atlantic 

submits that the UWOA is not a substitute for consideration, but, rather, prohibits a party 

to a written agreement in which the party expresses an intention to be “legally bound” 

from later challenging the contract based on a lack of consideration.5 Mid-Atlantic 

agrees with Socko that additional valuable consideration must be provided to an 

employee that signs a non-compete subsequent to the commencement of the 

employment relationship, but takes the position that, even if there is not additional 

valuable consideration, as the case here, nevertheless, under the UWOA, the “legally 

bound” language acts as a bar to a challenge to the validity of the agreement based 

upon a lack of consideration, citing McGuire v. Schneider, Inc., 534 A.2d 115, 118 (Pa. 

 

(Lcontinued) 

restrictive covenant entered into subsequent to the 

commencement of the employment relation, considering a 

seal on a document has long been held to [import] 

consideration, whereas, to the contrary, the UWOA does not 

[import] consideration, and the authority relied upon by the 

Superior Court did not support this conclusion[?] 

(3) Did the Superior Court impermissibly amend the UWOA 

under the guise of interpreting it? 

 

5

 While it is questionable whether this estoppel line of advocacy was fully raised before 

the tribunals below, we will nevertheless address Mid-Atlantic’s arguments in this 

regard. 
[J-40-2015] - 7 

Super. 1987) (“Under the [UWOA], that statement of intent removes lack of 

consideration as a ground for avoiding the contract.”), as well as certain federal and trial 

court decisions in support of its position. 

Mid-Atlantic goes on to list numerous rights which a party may contract away for 

a benefit, such as the right to a jury trial, forum selection, right to seek relief in court, 

and choice of law. Here, according to Mid-Atlantic, the agreement to be legally bound 

contracts away the right to later challenge the contract on the basis of a lack of 

consideration. For this reason, Mid-Atlantic further asserts that the Superior Court’s 

reliance on contract-under-seal cases is misplaced, as in Mid-Atlantic’s view, the seal 

(supplying consideration to support a covenant) and the UWOA (prohibiting a later 

challenge for lack of consideration), as described above, do not have the same effect. 

Mid-Atlantic rejects as dicta language in the cases relied upon by the Superior Court for 

the proposition that a seal and the UWOA share the same legal effect — namely, to 

import consideration into a contract and eliminate the need for proof of the existence of 

consideration. See Morgan’s Home Equip. Corp. v. Martucci, 136 A.2d 838 (Pa. 1957); 

Fedun v. Mike’s Café, Inc., 204 A.2d 776 (Pa. Super. 1964). 

Related thereto, Mid-Atlantic argues that, while the import of the seal under the 

common law may be altered by courts, the UWOA may not be rewritten by the Superior 

Court under the guise of interpretation. Employing tools of statutory construction, MidAtlantic maintains that the plain and unambiguous language of the UWOA controls over 

any offering by Socko of the history of the Model Act, as discussed more fully below. 

Mid-Atlantic stresses that the Superior Court may not legislate, and, here, the clear 

language of the UWOA covers all agreements, including the Agreement at issue herein, 

which contain the operative language of the UWOA. Mid-Atlantic also urges our Court 

to decline Socko’s request to find an exception to the UWOA for non-compete 
[J-40-2015] - 8 

agreements where none exists, and to hold that a non-competition restrictive covenant 

entered into after the commencement of employment may not be deemed to be void for 

lack of consideration pursuant to the UWOA when the employee agrees to be legally 

bound by its terms. 

Socko counters that Mid-Atlantic’s interpretation of the UWOA is inconsistent with 

the well-established principle that a restrictive covenant entered into after the 

commencement of the employment relationship is not enforceable — that is, is void as 

against public policy — if it lacks valuable consideration. Socko provides that restrictive 

covenants historically have been disfavored by the courts, as they are viewed as a 

restraint of trade preventing a former employee from earning a living. Socko asserts 

that, on one hand, Mid-Atlantic accepts that the UWOA is not a substitute for 

consideration, and does not disturb the requirement that valuable consideration is 

needed to support a restrictive covenant; but, on the other hand, Mid-Atlantic avers the 

UWOA nevertheless precludes a party to a non-compete agreement from challenging 

the covenant if valuable consideration is not provided. Socko warns that, as the 

boilerplate language that the parties “intend to be legally bound” appears in almost 

every contract in Pennsylvania, the practical effect of Mid-Atlantic’s interpretation of the 

UWOA would be the elimination of the consideration requirement for restrictive 

covenants. Contrary to Mid-Atlantic’s position, Socko develops that our Court has 

stated that the UWOA’s language as applied to a typical contract is a substitute for 

consideration. See Morgan’s. Socko further rejects Mid-Atlantic’s reliance on the 

Superior Court’s decision in McGuire for the proposition that the UWOA acts as a bar to 

a challenge based on lack of consideration, as, according to Socko, that decision did 

not involve a restrictive covenant, the reference to the UWOA was dicta, and 

subsequent Superior Court decisions involving restrictive covenants have made clear 
[J-40-2015] - 9 

that the UWOA is not a remedy for a lack of consideration for a restrictive covenant in 

an employment agreement. 

Further, Socko maintains that the Superior Court’s citation to contract-under-seal 

cases was appropriate, as the language which satisfies the UWOA serves as a 

substitute for consideration in the same manner that a seal serves as a substitute for 

consideration. Socko offers that a “contract under seal imports consideration that a 

party is not permitted to deny,” Appellee’s Brief at 9 (quoting Gompers v. Rochester, 56 

Pa. 194, 197 (1868)), but highlights that the only exception to the rule is when the 

contract involves a restraint of trade, citing Selden v. Jackson, 230 A.2d 197, 197-98 

(Pa. 1967). Socko further argues that reliance upon seal decisions was proper, noting 

that in Morgan’s, our Court stated that the practical effect of a statement of intent to be 

legally bound under the UWOA is the equivalent of signing the agreement under seal. 

Similarly, Socko responds to Mid-Atlantic’s claim that the Superior Court 

effectively amended the UWOA, pointing out that the court carefully and correctly 

applied 150 years of jurisprudence regarding agreements in restraint of trade to the 

facts of this case. Indeed, Socko highlights Professor Samuel Williston’s understanding 

of the UWOA when he drafted the Model Act in 1925, and envisioned it to act as a 

moderate and reasonable substitute to the use of seals. Further, Socko emphasizes 

that the Model Act was promulgated in 1925, Pennsylvania enacted the statute in 1927, 

and while Utah, the only other state to do so, adopted the UWOA in 1929, it repealed 

the statute four years later, leaving Pennsylvania as the only state to retain the uniform 

rule. Socko emphasizes, however, that it was never suggested that the statute was 

enacted to circumvent Pennsylvania law regarding agreements in restraint of trade, 

which, according to Socko, was well-established at the time the UWOA was enacted. 
[J-40-2015] - 10 

Amicus Richard Matesic, a solo practitioner from Shaler Township, Allegheny 

County, Pennsylvania, who represents individuals in employment and consumer 

protection litigation, provides a history of the UWOA and disputes Mid-Atlantic’s 

interpretation of the act as being against the public policy of the Commonwealth, which 

prohibits the enforcement of a non-competition agreement without adequate 

consideration and which discourages restraints of trade. Amicus contends that, while 

there exists no legislative history regarding the passage of the UWOA, the various 

commissioners of the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, 

including Professor Williston, “advanced a libertarian view, one that frankly ignored the 

social costs attendant in enforcement of adhesive contracts; they believed any person 

should be free to bind themselves irrevocably to an obligation, simply by signing a 

document containing the words that the promisor ‘intend[ed] to be legally bound.’” 

Amicus Brief at 8. Yet, Amicus maintains that, at these discussions, Williston also was 

of the view that the statute would not prevent a court sitting in equity from refusing to 

enforce a signed agreement containing the “legally bound” verbiage. According to 

Amicus, application of the UWOA would lead to an absurd and unreasonable result, as 

restraints on trade have been historically disfavored in the law, new and valuable 

consideration must be conferred on a currently employed individual for a new promise 

not to compete, and application of the UWOA, as interpreted by Mid-Atlantic, would 

deprive a court from ever determining whether adequate compensation was paid. 

Our analysis begins with a review of our Commonwealth’s treatment of 

employment agreements containing restrictive covenants at common law. Well before 

Horace Wood’s 1877 treatise on master and servant,6 which widely accelerated the 

universal adoption of the at-will employment doctrine by the various states, 

 

6

 H. Wood, A Treatise on the Law of Master and Servant § 136 (2d ed. 1886). 
[J-40-2015] - 11 

Pennsylvania embraced the notion that, in employment contracts of indefinite duration, 

either party could sever that relationship at will — that is, for any reason or no reason. 

Kirk v. Hartman & Co., 63 Pa. 97, 105 (1870) (“When . . . a person is employed as an 

agent, traveller [sic] or salesman, for no definite time, the law does not imply a hiring by 

the year, but at the will of both parties, and the principal has a right to terminate it at any 

time, and to discharge the agent from his service without notice.”); Peacock v. 

Cummings, 46 Pa. 434, 437 (1864) (“Duration of service was left to be defined by 

agreement, outside of the articles, or, if not defined, it was necessarily at will.”). While 

of considerable vintage, the at-will doctrine retains its vitality in Pennsylvania to this day. 

Weaver v. Harpster, 975 A.2d 555 (Pa. 2009); Henry v. Pittsburgh & Lake Erie R.R. Co., 

21 A. 157 (Pa. 1891). 

The at-will employment doctrine, however, is subject to certain exceptions, 

including, inter alia, statutory restrictions, judicially-created notions of public policy, and 

contractual provisions, which may serve as a limitation on the otherwise broad power to 

terminate the at-will employment relationship. One aspect of a contractual exception to 

the at-will doctrine, directly at issue in this appeal, is a restrictive covenant not to 

compete. In the absence of an agreement between an employer and employee to the 

contrary, the law does not prohibit an employee from competing with his former 

employer after the employee’s service has been terminated. Morgan’s, 136 A.2d at 

844. Non-competition restrictive covenants typically prohibit competition by a former 

employee for a specified time within a designated geographical area. Such covenants 

may serve to safeguard an employer’s protectable business interests which may relate 

to an employee’s special skills; the safeguarding of customer goodwill; proprietary 

business information, including processes, trade secrets, and inventions; as well as the 

time and resources the employer has invested in the training of its employees. 
[J-40-2015] - 12 

While a covenant not to compete may be desirable and justified in some 

circumstances on the part of an employer, Pennsylvania courts have historically viewed 

such covenants as contracts in restraint of trade that prevent a former employee from 

earning a livelihood, and, therefore, have disfavored such provisions in the law. See, 

e.g., Hess v. Gebhard & Co. Inc., 808 A.2d 912, 917 (Pa. 2002); Morgan’s, 136 A.2d at 

844. As our Court has explained: 

It has long been the rule at common law, that contracts in 

restraint of trade made independently of a sale of a business 

or contract of employment are void as against public policy 

regardless of the valuableness of the consideration 

exchanged therein. 

Morgan’s, 136 A.2d at 845. 

While generally disfavored, Pennsylvania law, however, has recognized the 

validity and enforceability of covenants not to compete in an employment agreement, 

assuming adherence to certain requirements. See Pulse Technologies, Inc. v. Notaro, 

67 A.3d 778 (Pa. 2013); Morgan’s, 136 A.2d at 844; see generally Kurt H. Decker, 

Refining Pennsylvania’s Standard for Invalidating a Non-Competition Restrictive 

Covenant When an Employee’s Termination is Unrelated to the Employer’s Protectible 

Business Interest, 104 Dick. L. Rev. 619 (2000). Our Court noted in Morgan’s the 

evolution of the treatment of restrictive covenants. Such covenants were first found to 

be absolutely void as against public policy due to a high societal demand for, but low 

supply of, skilled workers. Later, due to the reality of the new era brought on by the 

industrial revolution, a more balanced approach was taken by the courts which 

accepted partial restraints on trade, provided they were ancillary to the employment 

relationship and reasonably limited: 

Such general covenants not to compete present centuries 

old legal problems. The earliest cases were decided against 
[J-40-2015] - 13 

the economic background of a chronic shortage of skilled 

workers in England, the result of the virulent epidemics of 

the Black Death during the fourteenth century. It was not 

surprising, then, that all covenants to refrain from practicing 

a trade were held to be void as against public policy. This 

policy carried over into the early seventeenth century when 

the grants of exclusive trading privileges by the Sovereign 

caused widespread public indignation which broadened into 

a dislike for all restraints upon the free exercise of trade. 

However, by the eighteenth century England found itself in 

the midst of a new commonercial [sic] era, and adjusting to 

changed economic conditions, the courts upheld at common

law contracts in partial restraint of trade provided they were 

ancillary to a principal transaction, and were reasonably 

limited both in geographical extent and duration of time. 

Morgan’s, 136 A.2d at 844; see also Hess, 808 A.2d at 917-18. 

Consistent with this legal background, currently in Pennsylvania, restrictive 

covenants are enforceable only if they are: (1) ancillary to an employment relationship 

between an employee and an employer; (2) supported by adequate consideration; (3) 

the restrictions are reasonably limited in duration and geographic extent; and (4) the 

restrictions are designed to protect the legitimate interests of the employer. Hess, 808 

A.2d at 917; Piercing Pagoda, Inc. v. Hoffner, 351 A.2d 207, 210 (Pa. 1976); Morgan’s, 

136 A.2d at 844-46. 

As with other contracts, for an employment agreement containing a restrictive 

covenant to be enforced, consideration is crucial, whether the covenant is entered into 

prior to, during, or after employment ends. Thus, to be valid, a covenant not to compete 

must be consummated with the exchange of consideration. Capital Bakers Inc. v. 

Townsend, 231 A.2d 292, 293-94 (Pa. 1967) (restrictive covenant in employment 

contract executed 12 years after the start of employment was unenforceable for lack of 

consideration). If a noncompetition clause is executed at the inception of the 

employment, the consideration to support the covenant may be the award of the 
[J-40-2015] - 14 

position itself. Barb-Lee Mobile Frame Co. v. Hoot, 206 A.2d 59, 61 (Pa. 1965); 

Morgan’s, 136 A.2d at 845 (holding covenant not to compete may be enforceable if 

contained in an employment agreement executed upon the “taking of employment”). 

However, a restrictive covenant is not required to be included in the initial employment 

contract to be valid. Jacobson & Co. v. Int’l. Environment Corp., 235 A.2d 612, 618 (Pa. 

1967); see generally Jordan Liebman and Richard Nathan, The Enforceability of PostEmployment Noncompetition Agreements Formed After At-Will Employment Has 

Commenced: The “Afterthought” Agreement, 60 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1465 (1987). There 

are legitimate reasons for this, including the development of a worker’s expertise, but 

only after employment for a period of time: 

[I]n many instances, . . . the insertion of a restrictive 

covenant in the original contract would serve no valid

purpose. An employer who hires a novice has no desire to 

restrict his present competitive force. Only when the novice 

has developed a certain expertise, which could possibly 

injure the employer if unleashed competitively, will the 

employer begin to think in terms of the protection of a 

restrictive covenant. 

Jacobson & Co., 235 A.2d at 618. 

 When a non-competition clause is required after an employee has commenced 

his or her employment, it is enforceable only if the employee receives “new” and 

valuable consideration — that is, some corresponding benefit or a favorable change in 

employment status. See Pulse Technologies, Inc., 67 A.3d at 781-82. Sufficient new 

and valuable consideration has been found by our courts to include, inter alia, a 

promotion,7 a change from part-time to full-time employment,8 or even a change to a 

 

7

 M.S. Jacobs and Assoc., Inc. v. Duffley, 303 A.2d 921, 923 (Pa. 1979). 

8

 Modern Laundry & Dry Cleaning Co. v. Farrer, 536 A.2d 409, 411 (Pa. Super. 1988). 
[J-40-2015] - 15 

compensation package of bonuses, insurance benefits, and severance benefits.9 

Without new and valuable consideration, a restrictive covenant is unenforceable. 

Maintenance Specialties Inc. v. Gottus, 314 A.2d 279, 281 (Pa. 1974). More 

specifically, the mere continuation of the employment relationship at the time of entering 

into the restrictive covenant is insufficient to serve as consideration for the new 

covenant, despite it being an at-will relationship terminable by either party. Pulse 

Technologies, Inc.; George W. Kistler, Inc. v. O’Brien, 347 A.2d 311, 316 (Pa. 1975) 

(plurality). 

 In sum, while at common law, covenants in restraint of trade have long been 

disfavored by Pennsylvania courts, an agreement containing a non-compete clause will 

be upheld, if, among other considerations, it is supported by adequate consideration. In 

the context of requiring an employee to agree to a restrictive covenant mid-employment, 

however, such a restraint on trade will be enforceable only if new and valuable 

consideration, beyond mere continued employment, is provided and is sufficient to 

support the restrictive clause. 

As the interplay between this common law treatment of restrictive covenants and 

the effect of a statute — here, the UWOA — is at issue, we next turn to the guiding 

principles set forth in the Statutory Construction Act. 1 Pa.C.S. §§ 1501 et seq. 

Pursuant to that enactment, the objective of all interpretation and construction of 

statutes is to ascertain and effectuate the intention of the General Assembly. Id. § 

1921(a). “The best indication of the legislature’s intent is the plain language of the 

statute.” Dorsey v. Redman, 96 A.3d 332, 340 (Pa. 2014). When considering statutory 

language, “[w]ords and phrases shall be construed according to rules of grammar and 

according to their common and approved usage.” 1 Pa.C.S. § 1903(a). Further, when 

 

9

 Davis & Wade, Inc. v. Tripodi, 616 A.2d 1384, 1387 (Pa. Super. 1992). 
[J-40-2015] - 16 

the words of a statute are clear and unambiguous, there is no need to go beyond the 

plain meaning of the language of the statute “under the pretext of pursuing its spirit.” Id. 

§ 1921(b). Thus, only when the words of a statute are ambiguous should a reviewing 

court seek to ascertain the intent of the General Assembly through considerations of 

other factors enumerated in Section 1921(c). Id. § 1921(c); see generally Bayada 

Nurses Inc. v. Com. Dept. Labor and Indus., 8 A.3d 866, 880-81 (Pa. 2010). 

Through certain additional canons of construction, the legislature has provided 

further guidance. The General Assembly counsels that it does not intend a result that is 

absurd, impossible of execution, or unreasonable. 1 Pa.C.S. § 1922. Moreover, the 

rule that statutes in derogation of the common law are to be strictly construed — 

ostensibly, so as to not drastically change the existing law — shall have no application 

to the statutes of this Commonwealth enacted after September 1, 1937, id. § 1928(a); 

thus, stated in the affirmative, and as applied to this matter, the UWOA, enacted in 

1927, to the degree it is in derogation of the common law, must be strictly construed. 1 

Pa.C.S. § 1928(b)(8). 

With the common law treatment of restrictive covenants in employment contracts, 

as well as the guiding principles of statutory construction, in hand, we turn to consider 

how an employee’s challenge to the enforcement of an employment agreement 

containing a restrictive covenant not to compete, entered into after the commencement 

of employment and without consideration, yet containing the language “intend[ing] to be 

legally bound,” is impacted by the UWOA. 

Initially, we look to the language of the UWOA itself. We note that, by its terms, 

the UWOA commands that a written promise “shall not be invalid or unenforceable for 

lack of consideration, if the writing also contains an additional express statement, in any 

form of language, that the signer intends to be legally bound.” 33 P.S. § 6. Our 
[J-40-2015] - 17 

caselaw has explained that, generally, this section provides that a written agreement will 

not be deemed to be void for lack of consideration if it contains an express statement 

that the signer intends to be legally bound, Yocca v. Pittsburgh Steelers Sports, Inc., 

854 A.2d 425, 433 (Pa. 2004), and, more explicitly, has interpreted this provision to 

supply the necessary consideration for an agreement. See Morgan’s, 136 A.2d at n.12 

(parties’ express intention to be legally bound within meaning of UWOA has the same 

effect in importing consideration as a seal on the agreement). Mid-Atlantic, however, 

rejects this interpretation and, as noted above, claims that the “legally bound” language 

does not act as a substitute for consideration, but, rather, bars the signer from 

challenging the agreement on the basis of a lack of consideration. 

In light of the clear and unambiguous language of the UWOA, and consistent 

with our prior caselaw, we reject Mid-Atlantic’s view and conclude that a contract 

containing a written express statement of intent to be “legally bound” supplies the 

necessary consideration to support the enforceability of an agreement. The UWOA 

does not speak of extinguishing a cause of action or barring a challenge, but, rather, 

speaks in terms of merits or relief — if the promise is to be legally binding, the contract 

“shall not be invalid or unenforceable for lack of consideration.” 33 P.S. § 6. 

Further, even if we were to find the language to be unclear in this regard, while 

there is no legislative history from our General Assembly regarding the passage of the 

UWOA, the history underlying the creation of the uniform law shows that the drafter of 

the UWOA, the famed Professor Samuel Williston, specifically intended to revive the 

function of the seal as it formerly existed but without the formality, ritual, and 

shortcomings associated with seals. Handbook of the National Conference of 

Commissioners on Uniform State Laws and Proceedings of the Thirty-Fifth Annual 

Meeting (Detroit, Michigan 1925) at 194-97; Amicus Brief at 9-10. This being the case, 
[J-40-2015] - 18 

the UWOA was viewed as providing a substitute for the seal — thus providing 

consideration — and, consistent with the language of the statute, the lack of actual 

consideration would not result in an invalid or unenforceable agreement. Therefore, for 

these reasons, we reject Mid-Atlantic’s interpretation of this statutory provision as 

prohibiting a signatory to the agreement from challenging the contract on the basis of a 

lack of consideration. 

Ultimately, however, whether the UWOA provides the necessary consideration, 

akin to the seal, or whether the provision renders an agreement immune from 

challenge, the practical effect is the same: any party challenging the validity of a 

contract containing an express intent to be legally bound will not be entitled to relief 

from the agreement on the basis that the promises made therein lack consideration. 

Thus, based solely upon the language of the UWOA, it appears that, despite the lack of 

consideration, the Agreement would be enforceable against Socko. 

This is not the end of our analysis, however, as we must take into account the 

additional considerations found in the General Assembly’s cannons of statutory 

construction. Specifically, we must determine if such an interpretation of the statute 

leads to an absurd or unreasonable result. 1 Pa.C.S. § 1922. Moreover, in interpreting 

the legislature’s intentions, we must, according to the dictates of the Statutory 

Construction Act, strictly construe the UWOA, because it was enacted prior to 

September 1, 1937, and because it is in derogation of the common law mandating that 

restrictive covenants be supported by actual consideration. 1 Pa.C.S. § 1928(b)(8). 

We consider whether applying the plain language of the UWOA, to deny relief to 

an employee challenging a restrictive covenant on the basis of a lack of consideration, 

will lead to an unreasonable result. First, as detailed above, our Commonwealth has a 

long, and virtually uniform, history of strongly disfavoring covenants in restraint of trade. 
[J-40-2015] - 19 

While beneficial and necessary in some ways to an employer, our courts have 

recognized the unique and heavy burden placed upon an employee in attempting to 

earn a living when subjected to a restrictive covenant. Indeed, contracts containing 

restrictive covenants are treated as unique in the law, and we find it significant that, 

even with respect to a contract under seal, an exception was recognized for contracts 

involving a restraint of trade. Gompers, 56 Pa. at 197 (agreement in restraint of trade 

“is the only exception to the rule, that a contract under seal imports consideration which 

a party is not permitted to deny”); see also Newman v. Sablosky, 407 A.2d 448, 451 

(Pa. Super. 1979) (“While a seal to an agreement imports consideration, the rule is 

inapplicable in a court of equity [to enforce a restrictive covenant.]”). Moreover, and 

consistent with this sui generis approach to agreements in restraint of trade, our courts 

have mandated, in the post-commencement employment scenario, strict compliance 

with various requirements, including new and valuable consideration, beyond mere 

continued employment, to permit enforcement of the restrictive covenant. Related 

thereto, and as can be drawn from the above discussion, our courts aggressively have 

reviewed the adequacy of consideration supporting such restraints on trade. 

Upon consideration of the historic background regarding covenants not to 

compete, their relative positive and negative impact upon the employer-employee 

relationship, and their unique treatment in the law, including more rigorous scrutiny by 

our courts, we conclude that a construction of the UWOA which would vitiate the need 

for new and valuable consideration when entering into an agreement containing a 

restrictive covenant after the initiation of employment would be unreasonable. 1 

Pa.C.S.A. § 1922. Moreover, our conclusion is buttressed by the narrow construction 

which must be given to the UWOA. 1 Pa.C.S. § 1928(b)(8). Thus, we hold that an 

employment agreement containing a restrictive covenant not to compete may be 
[J-40-2015] - 20 

challenged for a lack of consideration even though the agreement, by its express terms, 

indicates that the parties “intend to be legally bound” pursuant to the UWOA. 

The order of the Superior Court is affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished. 

Mr. Chief Justice Saylor and Messrs. Justice Baer and Stevens join the opinion. 

Mr. Chief Justice Saylor files a concurring opinion. 

Mr. Justice Eakin files a dissenting opinion.