Akron Pest Control v. Radar Exterminating Co., Inc.
Decision Date | 06 March 1995 |
Docket Number | No. A94A2801,A94A2801 |
Citation | 455 S.E.2d 601,216 Ga.App. 495 |
Parties | AKRON PEST CONTROL et al. v. RADAR EXTERMINATING COMPANY, INC. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Harman, Owen, Saunders & Sweeney, Timothy J. Sweeney, Atlanta, for appellants.
Decker & Hallman, Richard P. Decker, Peter V. Hasbrouck, Atlanta, for appellee.
We granted appellants' application for interlocutory review to address the question of whether an agreement "not to solicit, either directly or indirectly, any current or past customers" of appellee may possibly be construed as requiring appellants to turn away clearly unsolicited business.
The underlying facts are not in material dispute. In December 1990 appellant Donald Sellers redeemed his 3,300 shares of common stock in Active Pest Control, Inc., pursuant to a Stock Redemption Agreement. Nonparty Donald Lackey then became sole shareholder of Active, which has since merged into appellee Radar Exterminating Company, Inc. ("Radar"). As part of the transaction, Sellers also entered into a nondisclosure/nonsolicitation agreement in which he agreed "not to solicit, either directly or indirectly any current or past customers or current employees of Buyer, (or in the event of a merger, Radar Exterminating Company, Incorporated) whether as a proprietor, partner, joint venture, employer, agent, consultant, officer, or beneficial or record owner for the purpose of providing pest control services of the kind which Buyer provides as its business." The restrictions were to last "for a period of two years from the closing date."
Sellers soon thereafter established corporate appellant Akron Pest Control, Inc. ("Akron"). It is undisputed that Akron did business with former customers of Active (now Radar) within the two-year period covered by the nondisclosure/nonsolicitation agreement. All of the evidence presented shows, however, that Sellers in no way sought out the former Active customers who subsequently did business with him through Akron.
Radar brought suit against Sellers and Akron for breach of contract, tortious interference with contractual relations, and an alleged violation of the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Sellers and Akron counterclaimed against Radar for sums due under two promissory notes executed by Active prior to its merger with Radar. Sellers and Akron moved for summary judgment on all counts of the complaint and counterclaim, which was denied. The trial court certified the order for immediate review, and Sellers and Akron petitioned this court seeking interlocutory review. The application was granted, and this appeal followed.
1. Sellers contends he in no way solicited former clients and the trial court erred in finding a jury question remaining on this issue. Radar does not dispute the state of the evidence presented on this issue, but instead takes the position that the nondisclosure language "could be understood by the parties to mean that Appellant Sellers would refuse and, in fact, turn away pest control business if contacted by any customers on Exhibit 'B' of the Verified Complaint and refuse to hire and, in fact, turn away employees of Active/Radar as of the date of the stock sale if they came to him looking for employment." (Emphasis supplied.) We disagree.
(Citations, punctuation and emphasis omitted.) Race, Inc. v. Wade Leasing, 201 Ga.App. 340, 341(1), 411 S.E.2d 56 (1991).
"Webster's New Intl. Dictionary, 2d ed., defines 'solicit' as 'to entreat, importune ... to endeavor to obtain by asking or pleading ... to urge....' " Mgmt. Compensation Group/Southeast v. United Security Employee Programs, 194 Ga.App. 99, 102(2), 389 S.E.2d 525 (1989). The word has been otherwise defined as: Black's Law Dictionary, p. 1392 (6th ed. 1990).
The phrase "not to solicit ... indirectly," though undisputedly a broad statement of the parties' intent with respect to the activity in which Sellers agreed not to engage, is not ambiguous. See Citadel Corp. v. Sun Chemical Corp., 212 Ga.App. 875, 876(2), 443 S.E.2d 489 (1994); Manderson & Assoc. v. Gore, 193 Ga.App. 723, 730(5), 389 S.E.2d 251 (1989). For Sellers to violate the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gallagher Benefit Servs., Inc. v. Campbell
...LifeBrite Labs., LLC v. Cooksey , No. 1:15-cv-4309-TWT, 2016 WL 7840217, at *8 (N.D.). See also Akron Pest Control v. Radar Exterminating Co. , 216 Ga. App. 495, 497, 455 S.E.2d 601 (1995) (listing actions that could be considered a solicitation). "An ‘indirect’ solicitation occurs when the......
-
Habif, Arogeti & Wynne, PC v. Baggett
...Inc. v. Haege, 218 Ga.App. 578, 462 S.E.2d 396 (1995) ("would not contact any customer"). 46. See Akron Pest Control v. Radar Exterminating Co., 216 Ga.App. 495, 497, 455 S.E.2d 601 (1995) (solicit means to take affirmative action). Compare Singer, supra, 250 Ga. at 377, 297 S.E.2d 473 (cov......
-
Gen. Assurance of Am., Inc. v. Overby–Seawell Co.
...clause, i.e., that OSC solicited a GAA client in violation of the Confidentiality Agreement. In Akron Pest Control v. Radar Exterminating Co., 216 Ga.App. 495, 455 S.E.2d 601 (1995), the Georgia Court of Appeals analyzed a non-solicitation clause containing “[t]he phrase ‘not to solicit .........
-
Bearoff v. Craton
...a plaintiff cannot recover monetary damages under the UDTPA, it can obtain equitable relief. Akron Pest Control v. Radar Exterminating Co. , 216 Ga. App. 495, 498 (2), 455 S.E.2d 601 (1995). Specifically, if a plaintiff can prove both that the defendant engaged in one or more deceptive trad......
-
Protecting Trade Secrets and Confidential Information in Georgia - C. Geoffrey Weirich and Daniel P. Hart
...entreaty" from known or prospective customers was overbroad and unenforceable). 75. See Akron Pest Control v. Radar Exterminating Co., 216 Ga. App. 495, 497, 455 S.E.2d 601, 603 (1995) (holding that a former employee did not violate a customer nonsolicitation provision merely by accepting b......
-
Do's and Don'ts When Handling a Product Liability Matter in Georgia
...Lauria v. Ford Motor Co., 169 Ga. App. 203, 206, 312 S.E.2d 190, 193 (1983). [5] Akron Pest Control v. Radar Exterminating Co., Inc., 216 Ga.App. 495, 498, 455 S.E.2d 601, 603 (1995). [6] Catrett v. Landmark Dodge, Inc., 253 Ga.App. 639, 644, 560 S.E.2d 101, 106 (2002). [7] Id. [8] Id. (quo......