Court Opinion

ID: 9705485
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 01:08:49.405287+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:15:36.005302
License: Public Domain

BROWN, EJ.
¶ 29. (concurring). I agree with the majority that the noncompete clause is invalid. In my view, if the noncompete clause is invalid, then Milosch has not violated any condition of the contract. If Milosch has not violated a valid condition of the contract, section 4.2, which allows forfeiture of renewal commissions upon violation of the contract, may not be invoked. Therefore, Equable cannot use section 4.2 to relieve itself from paying further commissions to Milosch for the simple reason that Milosch has not *194violated any valid covenant of the contract. Thus, all of the majority's discussion taking place after holding that section 5.1 is invalid, is unnecessary.1

 If on further review, the supreme court were to find that section 5.1 is valid, then I think it is important to state my agreement with the majority that section 4.2 is a penalty clause.