F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Co. v. Barrington
| Citation | 233 N.E.2d 756,353 Mass. 585 |
| Parties | F. A. BARTLETT TREE EXPERT COMPANY v. William D. BARRINGTON. |
| Decision Date | 02 February 1968 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Carlton W. Spencer, Boston (John A. McGuinn, Washington, D.C., with him) for plaintiff.
Robert W. Meserve, Boston (Gordon L. Doerfer, Cambridge, with him) for defendant.
Before WILKINS, C.J., and SPALDING, CUTTER, KIRK & REARDON, JJ.
The plaintiff brings this bill in equity to enjoin the defendant from violating a restrictive covenant in an employment contract. The judge made findings of fact and ordered the bill dismissed. From a decree in accordance with this order, the plaintiff appealed. The evidence is reported.
We summarize the findings as follows: The plaintiff is engaged in the business of general tree care, tree surgery and utility line clearance. The defendant entered the plaintiff's employ on January 19, 1948, and remained there until his resignation as of January 8, 1966. The defendant then started his own business in which he performed both tree care and general landscaping services. Upon entering the plaintiff's employ the plaintiff and defendant entered into a written contract which either party could terminate on ten days' notice. Under paragraph 5(d) of the contract the defendant agreed 'not to engage for a period of two years from the termination of this contract in the same or similar line of business as that carried on by the employer, or work for any individual, firm or corporation engaged in such line or similar line of business, within any area which may at any time be assigned to the employee by the employer during the existence of this contract.'
The crucial issue, as stated by the judge, is 'whether * * * the 1948 contract was in effect on January * * * (8) 1966, when the defendant terminated his employment with the plaintiff.' More precisely, the issue is whether the restrictive covenant contained in that contract was operative when the defendant left the plaintiff's employ. 1
No contention is made that the covenant is unenforceable. It is reasonably limited both as to space and time and, if operative, would be enforceable against the defendant in the event of a breach. Walker Coal & Ice Co. v. Westerman, 263 Mass. 235, 238--239, 160 N.E. 801. Economy Grocery Stores Corp. v. McMenamy, 290 Mass. 549, 551, 195 N.E. 737. New England Tree Expert Co. Inc. v. Russell, 306 Mass. 504, 510--511, 28 N.E.2d 997. The plaintiff concedes that if the covenant contained in the 1948 contract was violated the two year period has now expired and it seeks only damages.
Under the 1948 contract the defendant was hired to work 'in the capacity of (s)alesman under the Bartlett Sales Plan dated April 1, 1943.' Paragraph 6 of the contract recited that the defendant was familiar with that plan and was to be paid in accordance with the rate fixed by it. The defendant worked as a salesman under the Bartlett plan from 1948 to 1960. In 1960 and again in 1965 certain charges in the terms of employment were made. These changes, as found by the judge, in substance were as follows: In 1960 the plaintiff introduced a new sales plan, known as Sales Plan No. 3, under which it required the defendant to work. This plan made substantial changes in the defendant's remuneration and in his sales area. At the time of these changes the plaintiff submitted a written contract incorporating the new terms to the defendant, who refused to sign it and sent it back to the plaintiff. The defendant, nevertheless, worked under the new plan until January 1, 1965, when he became a district sales manager in a new area with a new basis of remuneration.
The judge concluded that the conduct of the parties shows a clear new employment contract in both 1930 and 1965 and that the 1948 contract was abandoned and rescinded by mutual consent.
There was no error.
The defendant worked under the 1948 contract for twelve years. In 1960, the defendant's rate of compensation and sales area were changed. Such far reaching changes strongly suggest that the parties had abandoned their old arrangement and had entered into a new relationship. 2
The changes occurring in 1965 are more fundamental than those of 1...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Astro-Med, Inc. v. Nihon Kohden America, Inc.
...LEXIS 348 (Mass.Super.Ct. Aug. 24, 2004). The genesis of the Massachusetts material change rule is F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Co. v. Barrington, 353 Mass. 585, 233 N.E.2d 756 (1968). However, as interpreted in Massachusetts, "in both Bartlett Tree and AFC Cable Systems, the court found that ......
-
Com. v. Wiseman
...Kyes, 304 Mass. 56, 57--58, 22 N.E.2d 622; Skil Corp. v. Barnet, 337 Mass. 485, 488, 150 N.E.2d 551; F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Co. v. Barrington, 353 Mass. 585, 586, 233 N.E.2d 756, fn. 1. As to findings based in part upon oral evidence, we decide the case according to our judgment, giving ......
-
Ge Betz, Inc. v. Conrad
...covenant is greatly expanded, new consideration is necessary for that covenant to be enforceable. F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Co. v. Barrington, 353 Mass. 585, 233 N.E.2d 756, 758 (1968). Under the rule in Barrington proffered by individual defendants, “[t]he question to be decided is whether......
-
Gishen v. Dura Corp.
...Wittenberg, 205 Mass. 319, 326--327, 91 N.E. 383; Blood v. Dewey, 315 Mass. 500, 502, 53 N.E.2d 227; F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Co. v. Barrington, 353 Mass. 585, 587--588, 233 N.E.2d 756. The letters exchanged in May, 1966, discuss how to calculate the commission due under the February modi......
-
“Material Changes” to New Hampshire’s Noncompete Law Proposed
...originally appeared in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s 1968 seminal decision in F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Co. v. Barrington, 353 Mass. 585 (1968). In that decision, the SJC held that changes to the employee’s compensation and sales territory “strongly suggest that the parties had......
-
“Material Changes” to New Hampshire’s Noncompete Law Proposed
...originally appeared in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s 1968 seminal decision in F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Co. v. Barrington, 353 Mass. 585 (1968). In that decision, the SJC held that changes to the employee’s compensation and sales territory “strongly suggest that the parties had......