McNeal Group, Inc. v. Restivo, 40330
| Decision Date | 09 February 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 40330,40330 |
| Citation | 252 Ga. 112,311 S.E.2d 831 |
| Parties | , 1984-1 Trade Cases P 65,856 McNEAL GROUP, INC. v. John Gordon RESTIVO. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Ben F. Hendricks, Payne & Hendricks, Covington, for McNeal Group, Inc., d/b/a Curtis Mathes Home Entertainment Center.
John G. Restivo, pro se.
C. Michael Walker, Covington, for John Gordon Restivo.
This case involves the validity of a restrictive covenant in an employment contract. John Restivo worked for McNeal Group, Inc. (McNeal) from November of 1981 to March of 1983. In February, 1983 Restivo and McNeal entered into an employment contract, the relevant part of which provides that "for a period of one year following termination of his employment by Employer, he (Employee) will not engage in any business competitive with Employer in any capacity whatsoever...." Restivo left McNeal in March, 1983, and in April, 1983, he began work for another company. McNeal subsequently filed suit seeking to enjoin Restivo from violating the restrictive covenant. The trial court refused to grant injunctive relief, and McNeal has appealed. We affirm.
By prohibiting Restivo from working for any competitor in any capacity, the restrictive covenant in question fails to specify with particularity the activities which the employee is prohibited from performing and is therefore too indefinite to be enforceable. Orkin Exterminating Co. v. Walker, 251 Ga. 536(2)(c), 307 S.E.2d 914 (1983); Wilson v. Center Brothers, Inc., 250 Ga. 156, 296 S.E.2d 589 (1982); Howard Schultz v. Broniec, 239 Ga. 181(2), 236 S.E.2d 265 (1977). Moreover, this same provision renders the covenant overbroad and thus unenforceable, because it "imposes a greater limitation upon the employee than is necessary for the protection of the employer." Howard Schultz v. Broniec, supra, 184, 236 S.E.2d 265; Horne v. Drachman, 247 Ga. 802, 805, 280 S.E.2d 338 (1981).
Judgment affirmed.
All the Justices concur, except MARSHALL, P.J., who dissents.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
National Consultants, Inc. v. Burt
...to the nature of the proscribed activities (all conceivable forms of other employment are restricted). See generally McNeal Group v. Restivo, 252 Ga. 112, 311 S.E.2d 831 (restrictive covenant invalid which in effect prohibited employee from work for any competitor in any capacity); Ward v. ......
-
JE Hanger, Inc. v. Scussel, Civil Action No. 96-C-901-S.
...Inc. v. Thompson Recruitment Advertising, Inc., 183 Ga.App. 678, 359 S.E.2d 737 (Ga.App.1987) (quoting McNeal Group Inc. v. Restivo, 252 Ga. 112, 311 S.E.2d 831 (Ga.1984)); Uni-Worth Enterprises Inc. v. Wilson, 244 Ga. 636, 261 S.E.2d 572 In this case, the court finds that this covenant doe......
-
King v. Brasington
... ... called upon to reconcile the cases of Burnette Ford, Inc. v. Hayes, 227 Ga. 551, 181 S.E.2d 866 (1971), with ... ...
-
Pierce v. Industrial Boiler Co., Inc.
...more definite than restrictions of the same type which we have encountered in other cases. For example, in McNeal Group, Inc. v. Restivo, 252 Ga. 112, 311 S.E.2d 831 (1984), we considered an employment contract which forbade an employee from engaging "in any business competitive with Employ......