Court Opinion

ID: 9652556
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 17:26:09.464849+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:09:24.657046
License: Public Domain

On motion for rehearing. After the foregoing opinion was filed the plaintiff moved for rehearing upon the ground “that a decided ambiguity exists as to whether or not a contract to restrain an employee from competing with his employer can be enforced” and requested “a clarification of the Court’s opinion with particular reference to the clause ‘not to compete,’ as spelled out in this contract . ... ”
Wheeler, J. The plaintiff’s argument suggests we have attached no significance to a covenant in restraint of competition where there are no trade secrets involved. The opinion cites with approval Spaulding v. Mayo, 81 N. H. 85, which is authority for the proposition that such a covenant will be enforced if it is reasonable to do so. In this case, however, the Trial Court was warranted in finding that the contract limitations as to time and area were not reasonable and that it would be “inequitable under all the circumstances to continue the injunction.”

Motion denied.

February 4, 1958.