![]() The Supreme Judicial Court on its own initiative transferred the case from the Appeals Court.īenjamin M. ![]() ĬIVIL ACTION commenced in the Superior Court Department on November 21, 2017. In the context of a civil action involving a provision in an agreement entered into by an automotive dealership group (dealership group) and the defendant, who was a former executive and minority owner of the dealership group, prohibiting the defendant for a specified period of time from hiring or soliciting for hire the dealership group's employees or encouraging such employees to leave the dealership group, this court concluded that the provision arose in a context more akin to the sale of a business than to an employment relationship, and that the provision was an enforceable restrictive covenant necessary to protect a legitimate business interest, in that, given the defendant's prior position within the dealership group, his present position as a competitor well poised to steal employees from the dealership group, and the additional consideration that he received for agreeing to the provision, the dealership group had a legitimate "anti-raiding" business interest however, this court further concluded that the trial judge abused his discretion by extending the provision in the agreement for an additional year without first finding that monetary damages could not compensate the dealership group adequately for its lost employees or that the defendant's finances were so precarious that equitable relief should be accelerated. Contract, Agreement not to compete, Performance and breach.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |