Bob Pagan Ford, Inc. V. Charles T. Smith, Jr.

OVERVIEW: Appellant automobile dealer, brought an action against appellee, its former employee, to enforce a written covenant in his employment contract not to compete in automobile sales business within the county for a three-year period. The trial court ordered a permanent injunction against appellee for a reduced period of six months, retroactive to the date of employment termination. Appellant sought review, contending that the trial court abused its discretion in reducing the covenant's duration. The reviewing court affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court's decision. The court explained that because the injunction expired seven months prior to the court's decision, reinstatement and extension of the injunction imposed a more onerous burden on appellee than was reasonably necessary to protect appellant's business and good will.

OUTCOME: The court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, finding no abuse of discretion in the reduction of the duration of a covenant not to compete against appellee, former employee, where hardship to appellee by reinstatement of the expired injunction was a more onerous burden than was required to protect the business of appellant.

OVERVIEW: Defendant maker of a note (maker) entered into a contract with plaintiff payee wherein the payee was to purchase some stocks. The maker executed a promissory note and delivered it to an escrow agent who was to hold the note until the maker had completed negotiating the deal with the payee. When the maker failed to pay the payee filed an action against the maker. The trial court found in favor of the payee. On review, the maker argued that he never delivered the note to the payee and therefore was not liable on the note. The court found that the maker failed to raise the argument in the trial court and therefore the issue was waived. The court also found that the trial court's finding that there was adequate consideration was valid and that the promissory note itself stated that the note was for value received. Therefore, the trial court's decision was affirmed.

OUTCOME: The trial court's decision that found in favor of the payee was affirmed.

QUESTION: Did the court listen to Seier's argument and attempt to determine the value of the consideration?

ANALYSIS: Yes, the court did listen to Seier's argument and attempt to determine the value of the consideration. Since this situation occurred during a time when Seier didn't know the price of the stock, he does have to right to pay a lesser value then what is proposed initially. I believe he did research on the subject and decided he did want to get beat out of his money. According to page 211 of our textbook, consideration consist of a mutual exchange of gains and losses between contracting parties. The gain by the offeree (Seier) is at the

...