Court Opinion

ID: 9758751
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 23:43:52.982128+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:55.486191
License: Public Domain

BROSKY, Judge,
concurring and dissenting:
Although the restrictive covenant in this case was entered into after the initial date of employment and might therefore be found unenforceable, (See e.g. George W. Kistler, Inc. v. O’Brien, 464 Pa. 475, 347 A.2d 311 (1975)), I agree with the conclusion implicit in the majority opinion that this covenant was supported by sufficient consideration since it was entered into at the time Mr. O’Connor began to earn a commission. See Maintenance Specialties, Inc. v. Gottus, 455 Pa. 327, 314 A.2d 279 (1974); Jacobson & Co. v. International Environment Corp., 427 Pa. 439, 235 A.2d 612 (1967).
However, it is well established that restrictive covenants are enforceable only if they are reasonably limited as to duration of time and geographical extent. See Jacobson & Co., supra; John G. Bryant Co. v. Sling Testing & Repair, Inc., 471 Pa. 1, 369 A.2d 1164 (1977).
*257I believe that the one year period imposed by the restrictive covenant in this case is excessive given the relevant facts and keeping in mind that as a society our public policy favors free enterprise. Within a six month period appellants could contact the clients whom Mr. O’Connor had served and try to convince them to continue to do business with the firm. To prevent Mr. O’Connor from starting a competing business for a year provides appellants more protection than necessary.1
As we explained in Harry Blackwood, Inc. v. Caputo, 290 Pa.Super. 140, 434 A.2d 169, 171 (1981):
[w]hen the restraint is for the purpose of protecting customer relations, [as it is here,] its duration is reasonable only if it is no longer than necessary for the employer to put a new man on the job and for the new employee to have a reasonable opportunity to demonstrate his effectiveness to the customers.
I, therefore, dissent from that position of the majority opinion that upholds a one year restriction and would instead impose a six month restriction.

. Compare John G. Bryant Co., supra in which customer contact was infrequent. The nature of the employment industry would seem to mandate more frequent client contact.