Three salesmen worked for Sentient Jet, a small luxury airline charter service.

Question

Three salesmen worked for Sentient Jet, a small luxury airline charter service. They signed a non-compete agreement, promising to not go to work for a competing employer within a year after working for Sentient and also agreeing to not take any confidential information with them when they left the firm. When there was a change in the CEO of their firm, and talk of the company being bought out, the employees left the firm and went to work for Apollo Jets, a competitor, and allegedly took proprietary information with them that allowed them to solicit former Sentient clients. The plaintiff sought an injunction to ban the employees from working for a competitor for a year and also sought damages. The defendants argued that material changes in circumstances should have made the agreement not to compete unenforceable. How do you think the jury decided in this case?

Explanation / Answer

In this case, the decisions should be against the three employees. This is mainly due to the fact that the failure to implement the agreement will be resulting in the irreparable harm which can be faced by the former employers. The chances of a material change any indefinite time in the future does not result in any kind of material change.

At the same time, if there is a change in the leadership of the organization, it does not result in any kind of material change which can be utilized by someone in that fact that the covenant not to compete was rescinded.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse T
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.