Court Opinion

ID: 9588005
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:28:49.21707+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:40:46.517654
License: Public Domain

Judge WEBB
dissenting.
I dissent from the majority. The record shows that the defendant voluntarily entered into a contract with the plaintiff under the terms of which he would not compete with the plaintiff within a certain geographic area and for a prescribed time. The majority does not question the reasonableness of the time and area. He later changed his employment with the plaintiff and for a substantial consideration, he signed a new contract in which he again agreed not to compete within the same area and for the same time. The defendant was not required to sign this contract and I believe it is error for us to say he does not have to abide by it. That will be the effect if the - plaintiff is limited to money damages which it may or may not be able to prove, and which it might not be able to collect if it gets a money judgment.
The majority relies on the failure of the plaintiff to show damages. That is one reason I think the injunction should issue. It is difficult to prove damages in this type of case and yet we know the plaintiff could suffer substantial damages. I believe the effect of the majority opinion is to allow the defendant to flaunt the terms of a contract to which he freely assented. This I would not do. I vote to reverse.