Associated Spring Corp. v. Roy F. Wilson & Avnet, Inc.
Decision Date | 16 February 1976 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 74-958. |
Citation | 410 F. Supp. 967 |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina |
Parties | ASSOCIATED SPRING CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. ROY F. WILSON & AVNET, INC., Defendants. |
Douglas McKay, Jr., McKay, Sherrill, Walker, Townsend & Wilkins, Columbia, S. C., and N. Heyward Clarkson, III, Greenville, S. C., for plaintiff.
William W. Kehl, Wyche, Burgess, Freeman & Parham, Greenville, S. C., for defendants.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Plaintiff in this action is a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business located in Bristol, Connecticut; its Bowman Products Division (Bowman), headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio, is principally engaged in the business of selling at wholesale various automobile and truck parts and related products. Defendant Wilson, a South Carolina citizen and resident, was formerly one of a number of independent sales representatives employed by Bowman but now works in a similar capacity for one of Bowman's competitors, the Fairmount Motor Products Divisions of defendant Avnet, Inc., a New York corporation.
Bowman seeks in this action to enforce a covenant contained in its contract with Wilson which would prohibit him from soliciting sales from certain customers to whom he had sold during his employment by Bowman. Plaintiff requests that Wilson be enjoined from further violation of the covenant, that Avnet, Inc. be enjoined from participating in and benefiting from Wilson's violation of the covenant, and that actual and punitive damages be awarded against Wilson and Avnet for past violations. Defendants admit violation of the covenant but contend that the provision is unenforceable because of Bowman's own breach of the contract terms. Avnet further denies any actions on its part to induce the breach of or otherwise interfere with Wilson's contract with Bowman.
The case was heard before the court without a jury in Greenville, South Carolina on October 2 and 3, 1975, being consolidated for the purpose of trial with Civil Action No. 74-1191, Associated Spring Corp. v. John Leroy Julian, Jr., and Avnet, Inc., and upon the credible testimony and exhibits there presented, the court now publishes the following
1. On July 29, 1971 Roy F. Wilson signed a "Salesman's Agreement" with Bowman which was executed by an agent of Bowman and became effective on August 19, 1971. This contract generally authorized Wilson "to solicit orders for certain merchandise offered by the Company for sale," and it contained, among others, the following provisions which appear relevant to the issues in this action:
Pursuant to the provisions contained in the section above denoted "TERRITORY," the following "Territory Description" was incorporated into Wilson's contract with Bowman:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Williams v. Riedman
...issue, we are persuaded by the reasoning of a South Carolina United States District Court case. See Associated Spring Corp. v. Roy F. Wilson & Avnet, Inc., 410 F.Supp. 967 (D.S.C.1976). In Associated Spring, Wilson was hired by Associated Spring as a salesman. The employment contract contai......
-
Barnes Group, Inc. v. C & C Products, Inc.
...Arguably, the "reasonableness" test under the laws of the various jurisdictions involved is identical. Cf. Associated Spring Corp. v. Wilson, 410 F.Supp. 967, 975 (D.S.C.1975) (finding a restrictive covenant reasonable and enforceable under the laws of both South Carolina and Ohio). The lan......
-
Volvo Const. Equip. North America v. Clm Equip.
...contractus,3 also recognizes the right of parties to choose another jurisdiction's law to govern the contract. Associated Spring Corp. v. Wilson, 410 F.Supp. 967, 975 (D.S.C.1976). The Associated Spring Corp. court relied on the following language from the South Carolina Supreme Court's opi......
-
Prysmian Cables & Sys. USA, LLC v. Szymanski
...in South Carolina as applicable to any of the multitude of matters which may arise in equity." Associated Spring Corp. v. Roy F. Wilson & Avnet, Inc. , 410 F. Supp. 967, 978 (D.S.C. 1976) (citing Mayfield v. British & Am. Mfg. Co. , 104 S.C. 152, 88 S.E. 370 (S.C. 1916) ; Taff v. Smith , 11......