WHITE V. FLETCHER/MAYO/ASSOCIATES
251 Ga. 203 (1983)
NATURE OF THE CASE: This was a dispute over a noncompete clause.
FACTS: White (P) began his work in advertising with FMA (D) in Missouri, was eventually
transferred to Atlanta, and became a senior vice president. D began merger talks with Doyle
Dane Bernbach and a deal was reached. P had purchased stock in D over a period of time and
owned 7114 share of D's common stock. The book value was $85,000. P voted in favor of the
merger and got $145,000 in Doyle Dane stock. Prior to the merger P had no written employment
contract, and D and Dane conditioned its purchase of D on P's signature on agreements
containing restrictive covenants in favor of D and Doyle Dane. D was told that he should
sign the agreements because they were necessary to guarantee his job and secure broader
career opportunities for him. It was a fact that P had D's biggest client under his care and
supervision as well as other clients and he was considered a key employee. P signed and soon
after the merger, he was fired. P sued over the covenants. The trial judge found them
overbroad and blue penciled them and then ordered them enforced. P appealed.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment