Opinion ID: 204041
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Partial Enforcement

Text: In the district court, defendants objected to the territorial breadth of this provision, which included not only all of North America but also all of Europe, and to the breadth of the activity captured by the provision. Defendants cited Rhode Island state law, which disfavors non-competition covenants. See, e.g., Cranston Print Works Co. v. Pothier, 848 A.2d 213, 220 (R.I. 2004); Koppers Prods. Co. v. Readio, 197 A. 441, 444-45 (R.I. 1938) (stating that noncompetitive employment contracts are carefully scrutinized by the court and only enforced when reasonable and when the restriction does not extend beyond what is apparently necessary for the protection of those in whose favor they are made). Consistent with Rhode Island law, the district court partially enforced the non-competition provision, restricting its territorial application to the state of Florida and to a limited subset of Astro-Med customers. See Durapin, Inc. v. Am. Prods., Inc., 559 A.2d 1051, 1058-59 (R.I. 1989). Defendants do not complain about the trial court's more restrictive interpretation of the Employee Agreement. Instead, they argue that the non-competition provision was not enforceable until the district court modified it to make it enforceable. We have no quarrel with defendants' general contention that under the partial enforcement rule, an overly-broad non-competition provision cannot be enforced until it is modified, a proposition that seems self-evident. But, defendants' real contention is that a party to a non-competition agreement cannot breach the agreement until it is judicially modified, and specifically that it was impossible for Plant to breach his agreement with Astro-Med until the district court modified the provision to make it enforceable. [7] Defendants' contention does not withstand analysis. Their logic would give the promisor in a non-competition agreement one free breach, requiring a prior judicial order before the provision could be said to have been violated. Such a proposition, the validity of which is without authority, would eviscerate all but the most narrowly tailored non-competition agreements, since a modification of any term of the provision would justify a breach of all its terms. Further, because most breaching employees gain the full benefit of the breach the first time they compete with their former employer, a second breach after judicial warning would in most cases be cumulative. Also, once a court restricts the scope of the non-competition agreement, the breaching party is being held to a more narrowly circumscribed agreement than the one he signed, and the more restrictive terms of the agreement remain as effective as the day they were agreed to. Finally, contrary to defendants' contention, the courts in Rhode Island have consistently issued orders against prior breaches of modified provisions. R.J. Carbone Co. v. Regan, 582 F. Supp. 2d 220 (D.R.I. 2008) (modifying a non-competition agreement and issuing a preliminary injunction against the former employee); Nestle Food Co. v. Miller, 836 F. Supp. 69 (D.R.I. 1993) (granting injunctive relief on the basis of a modified non-competition agreement and awarding nominal damages for conduct occurring prior to modification); Cranston Print Works, 848 A.2d at 221 (reversing a preliminary injunction, directing the trial court to determine the reasonableness of a non-competition covenant and to decide what remedies, if any, are appropriate for any proven violations of the settlement agreement); Aim High Acad., Inc. v. Jessen, No. KC-2008-1384, 2008 R.I. Super. LEXIS 152 (R.I. Super. Ct. Dec. 10, 2008) (modifying geographic range and issuing a preliminary injunction against former employees); Carcieri v. Creative Servs., Inc., No. 92-0726, 1992 R.I. Super. LEXIS 25 (R.I. Super. Ct. July 6, 1992) (modifying geographic scope and issuing preliminary injunction against former employees).