Barco Chemicals Division, Inc. v. Colton, 73--1319

Citation296 So.2d 649
Decision Date26 June 1974
Docket NumberNo. 73--1319,73--1319
Parties1974-2 Trade Cases P 75,176 BARCO CHEMICALS DIVISION, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. Herbert N. COLTON, Appellee.
CourtCourt of Appeal of Florida (US)

Melvin J. Richard and Dennis Alan Richard, Miami Beach, for appellant.

Marvin I. Moss, North Miami, and Leo Greenfield, Miami, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, CARROLL and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, plaintiff in the trial court, seeks review of an adverse final judgment entered pursuant to a directed verdict for the defendant in an action for injunctive relief. The action is based upon a restrictive covenant against competition in an employment contract entered into between the parties.

The trial court has set forth the basis of the directed verdict as follows:

'THIS CAUSE having come on to be heard for Final Hearing, and the Court having heard testimony from witnesses for the Plaintiff and argument of counsel on Defendant's Motion for Directed Verdict at the close of Plaintiff's case, and the Court, being otherwise fully advised in the premises, finds as follows:

'Based on Florida Statute Section 542.12 (F.S.A.) and the language of Storz Broadcasting Co. v. Courtney, (Fla.App.,) 178 So.2d 40 and other cases, the Court finds that the employment agreement will result in unjust results when applied to this Defendant and that the Plaintiff has not sustained its burden and has failed to establish a prima facie case.'

The trial court's reliance upon Storz Broadcasting Co. v. Courtney, Fla.App.1965, 178 So.2d 40, is misplaced in view of the fact that the holding in that case was that an employee's contract not to engage in a competing business will not be construed to extend beyond the proper import or further than the language of the contract absolutely requires.

The trial judge may not refuse to enforce a valid contract upon a general finding that enforcement will produce 'unjust results.' In Storz Broadcasting Co. v. Courtney, supra, this court pointed out:

'Nor was the trial court free to elect not to enforce the contract, if thus breached. The limit on the discretion referred to in the statute was disclosed in an opinion prepared by Chief Judge Sturgis in the first district court of appeal in Atlas Travel Service v. Morelly, Fla.App.1957, 98 So.2d 816, 818.'

The opinion in Atlas Travel Service, referred to in the quotation, states:

'F.S. § 542.12, F.S.A. clearly supersedes the common-law rule enunciated in Love v. Miami Laundry Co., supra, 118 Fla. 137, 160 So. 35. The permissory language of the statute, whereby agreements of the character in suit 'may', in the 'discretion' of the court, 'be enforced by injunction,' does not imply that the court is vested with an absolute or arbitrary discretion, and is construed as requiring that the discretion shall be reasonably exercised to the end that the object of the statute may not be nullified. The relief cannot be withheld when the proofs, as in the case on appeal, reveal no other alternative. Weston...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Sun Elastic Corp. v. O.B. Industries
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 9 June 1992
    ...v. Williams, 334 So.2d 154 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Foster & Co. v. Snodgrass, 333 So.2d 521 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); Barco Chemicals Div., Inc. v. Colton, 296 So.2d 649 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Storz Broadcasting Co. v. Courtney, 178 So.2d 40 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965), cert. denied, 188 So.2d 315 (Fla.1966); Am......
  • Twenty Four Collection, Inc. v. Keller, 80-181
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 21 October 1980
    ...an "unjust result" in the form of an overly burdensome effect upon the employee. We specifically so held in Barco Chemicals Division, Inc. v. Colten, 296 So.2d 649 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). Accord, Empiregas, Inc., of Pensacola v. Thomas, 359 So.2d 15 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), dismissed, 364 So.2d 893......
  • Lincare Holdings Inc. v. Ford
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 30 September 2020
    ...and consider the facts presented in the light most favorable to Lincare as the nonmoving party. See Barco Chems. Div., Inc. v. Colton, 296 So. 2d 649, 651 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974) ("Defendant appears to contend that the terms of his employment were changed and that he was thereby relieved of the ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT