Court Opinion

ID: 9629953
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:54:32.79056+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:28.003514
License: Public Domain

ROBERTS, Justice
(dissenting).
I dissent.
The majority asserts that “Under the facts of this case, the existing franchise is a legitimate business interest and therefore protectable.” Supra at 212. Nowhere, however, does it demonstrate that the franchisor had a protectable interest sufficient to justify enforcing the restrictive covenant.1
*515The “franchise” 2 involved here did not involve any exclusive product, secret formula, or other trade secret; nor did it involve special training, customer relations established on behalf of and at the franchisor’s expense, or any appropriation of the franchisor’s good will3 by the franchisee. So far as the facts appear, the franchisor engaged in no advertising nor made any other attempt to build up the franchisee’s business. I am at a loss to explain what legally protectable interest this restrictive covenant protects.

. Not only does the majority enforce the covenant, it does so for the entire thirty mile area claimed.

. The “franchise” agreement in reality seems to be an ordinary requirements contract.

. The franchisee, after terminating the contract, changed the name of his stores to “Earring Pagoda.”