Answer All Telephone Secretarial Service, Inc. v. Call 24 Inc.
| Decision Date | 27 February 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 79-76,79-76 |
| Citation | 381 So.2d 281 |
| Parties | 1980-1 Trade Cases P 63,209 ANSWER ALL TELEPHONE SECRETARIAL SERVICE, INC., Appellant, v. CALL 24 INC., a Florida Corporation, et al., Appellees. /T4-362. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Richard D. Stoner, Stephen C. Sawicki, and Elmo R. Hoffman of Hoffman, Hendry & Stoner, P. A., Orlando, for appellant.
Steven C. Burrage of Robert D. Melton, P. A., and H. James Brett, Orlando, for appellees.
The appellant Answer All Telephone Secretarial Services, Inc. appeals from a final order of the trial court dismissing its complaint with prejudice. Answer All is in the telephone answering service business. It sought damages and injunctive remedies to enforce "non-compete" clauses in employment contracts with six former employees. 1 The six former employees worked as telephone operators or answerers for Answer All. Shortly after they left Answer All they began performing similar services for Call 24, Inc., also an appellee in this proceeding. Call 24 and Answer All are business competitors.
The trial judge ruled that such no-competition clauses in employment contracts are not enforceable under Section 542.12(2), Florida Statutes (1979), unless the employee is competing with the former employer by engaging in a similar business and by soliciting customers of the former employee. Since the appellant could not allege that the appellees were soliciting its former customers, as well as engaging in a competitive business, the lower court ruled no cause of action was stated. We disagree, and reverse the order appealed from, and remand for further proceedings consistent herewith.
The issue involved in this proceeding involves the construction of section 542.12(2), Florida Statutes (1979). It is a novel question for which we find no direct precedent. We also commend the attorneys for both appellant and appellee for their thorough and exhaustive briefs on this question. The statute provides:
(2) One who sells the good will of a business, or any shareholder of a corporation selling or otherwise disposing of all of his shares in said corporation, may agree with the buyer, and one who is employed as an agent or employee may agree with his employer, to refrain from carrying on or engaging in a similar business and from soliciting old customers of such employer within a reasonably limited time and area, so long as the buyer or any person deriving title to the good will from him, and so long as such employer continues to carry on a like business therein. Said agreements may, in the discretion of a court of competent jurisdiction be enforced by injunction. (Emphasis added)
In Standard Newspapers, Inc. v. Woods, 110 So.2d 397 (Fla.1959), the Florida Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of section 542.12(2).
By law are condemned contracts under which persons are restrained from pursuing a lawful profession, trade or business, with two paragraphs of exceptions. One relates to partners and is not involved here. Sec. 542.12(3), supra. The other appears to exclude from the operation of the law persons in three categories: those who sell the good will of businesses, shareholders who sell all their stock in corporations, and employees or agents. Persons in the first two classes may agree with the buyers to desist from engaging in a similar business for a reasonable time in a reasonable area, while those in the third class, agents and employees, may assume the same obligations and may further agree not to solicit old customers of the former employer. (Emphasis added)
Standard Newspapers involved the sale of a newspaper in Marion County by the appellant to the appellee, and the appellee's agreement not to engage in the newspaper business in that county. The Supreme Court's dictum quoted above concerning employee contracts clearly contemplates that either competition in a similar business or solicitation of old customers may be proscribed in employment contracts.
The injuries which may be suffered...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sun Elastic Corp. v. O.B. Industries
...Inc. v. Keller, 389 So.2d 1062 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), review denied, 419 So.2d 1048 (Fla.1982); Answer All Telephone Secretarial Serv., Inc. v. Call 24, Inc., 381 So.2d 281 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Empiregas, Inc. of Pensacola v. Thomas, 359 So.2d 15 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), dismissed, 364 So.2d 893 (......
-
Twenty Four Collection, Inc. v. Keller, 80-181
...from soliciting former customers or dealing with former suppliers of the appellant. In Answer All Telephone Secretarial Service, Inc. v. Call 24 Inc., 381 So.2d 281, 282-83 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), the fifth district correctly stated, through Judge The injuries which may be suffered by an emplo......
-
Kverne v. Rollins Protective Services Co., 86-2306
...have learned any significant trade secrets does not bar the injunctive relief sought by Rollins. Answer All Tel. Secretarial Serv., Inc. v. Call 24, Inc., 381 So.2d 281 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Once Rollins presented evidence of a binding employment agreement containing a non-competition covena......
-
Suave Shoe Corp. v. Fernandez, 80-503
...might be used against the former employer was no basis on which to deny the plaintiff's relief, Answer All Telephone Secretarial Service, Inc. v. Call 24, Inc., 381 So.2d 281 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Foster and Company, Inc. v. Snodgrass, 333 So.2d 521 (Fla.2d DCA (4) Florida courts are committ......