Opinion ID: 2320967
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Enforceability of the Provision

Text: Section 5 of the defendant's non-competition agreement states, in relevant part, The prevailing party in any litigation arising under this Agreement shall be entitled to recover his or its attorneys' fees and expenses in addition to all other available remedies. As noted, the defendant contends that this provision is not enforceable because it is a contract of adhesion and because it is an unreasonable restraint on alternative employment. As to his argument regarding adhesion, although the defendant raised the issue in his notice of appeal, he failed to brief it. Therefore, the issue is deemed waived. In the Matter of Jasper-O'Neil & O'Neil, 149 N.H. 87, 91, 816 A.2d 989 (2003). Regarding his second argument, the defendant contends that this provision is contrary to New Hampshire public policy as a chilling and unreasonable restraint on alternative employment. According to the defendant, the disparity in bargaining power between the employer and the employee requires that an employer only be permitted to recover attorney's fees in a flagrant case. The defendant argues that this is a close case, and that the provision should not be enforced because [o]therwise, no one in such an employee's position would run the risk of losing at trial, even if he firmly and reasonably believed that his new job would not be competitive with his old one. While the defendant contends that enforcing such a provision in a close case would be unreasonable because it would impose a hardship on employees, that logic does not apply here. The defendant's non-competition agreement provides that: I [the defendant] will have the right, at any time during the non-competition period, to provide written notice to [ACAS] containing all the details of any proposed business activity on my part and [ACAS] shall respond within 15 days of such notice with its opinion as to whether such proposed business activity violates any obligation in this Section 3(a). Thus, the defendant had the right under his contract to obtain ACAS' opinion as to whether he was violating his non-competition agreement. Had he done so, and had ACAS stated that it believed his interactions with Accura would not violate the agreement, he might have been able to claim that he had a firmly and reasonably held belief that he was not competing. Because the defendant had the contractual right to ACAS' opinion and because he did not avail himself of that right, we do not agree that enforcing the prevailing party provision is unreasonable because he believed he was not competing.