finding that the plaintiffs harm would “be irreparable in the absence of an injunction [where] the customers [the defendant] pirated from the company would be permanently lost”
How later courts described this case
- finding that the plaintiffs harm would “be irreparable in the absence of an injunction [where] the customers [the defendant] pirated from the company would be permanently lost”
- concluding the employee breached his restrictive covenant to not compete because the employee was “prohibited ... from either soliciting or servicing his former [employer’s] customers in any direct or indirect way”
- holding that an injunction could be entered beyond the original expiration date of a restrictive covenant
- recognizing goal “to impose such terms and conditions as the justice and equities of the case require”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
HARRIS, Justice
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. The majority concedes the employer itself breached the contract by failing to give written notice to Ewing that he was fired. This failure should preclude the employer from calling upon the court to enforce the contract. See Felton Beauty Supply Co. v. Levy, 31 S.E.2d 651, 654 (Ga.1944) (failure of employer to give contractually required notice precludes employer from obtaining injunction to enforce covenant not to compete); 54 Am.Jur.2d Monopolies § 570, at 998 (1971) (anticompetitive employment covenants held unenforceable where employer discharged employee without giving contractually required notice); Annotation, 155 A.L.R. 652 (1945). The trial court was correct in rejecting Presto-X’s request for injunctions. The failure should for the same reason also preclude Presto-X from recovering damages.