Miller Mechanical, Inc. v. Ruth
| Decision Date | 10 July 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 44866,44866 |
| Citation | 300 So.2d 11 |
| Parties | MILLER MECHANICAL, INC., a Florida corporation, Petitioner, v. Allan F. RUTH, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
H. Vernon Davids of Davids, Decker, Henson & Hadley, Orlando, for petitioner.
R. L. Russell of Van Den Berg, Gay, Burke & Dyer, Orlando, for respondent.
This cause is before the Court on a petition for writ of certiorari directed to the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, in Miller Mechanical, Inc. v. Ruth, 287 So.2d 174, which allegedly conflicts with the decision in Data Supplies, Inc. v. Cowart, 240 So.2d 829 (Fla.App.2d, 1970).
The facts, as determined by the trial judge and affirmed by the District Court of Appeal, are as follows: Respondent, hereinafter referred to as defendant, entered into a contract of employment with petitioner, hereinafter referred to as plaintiff, on December 15, 1970. The contract provided that defendant 'would not engage in the ownership or operation of a competing business of the same type as the company of Miller Mechanical, Inc., for a period of three years or in a radius of fifty miles.' The trial judge found that the contract was valid but unreasonable as to the length of time defendant was proscribed from competing with plaintiff. Although there was no question but that defendant had breached the contract, the trial judge held that the plaintiff had not suffered any pecuniary damages. In finding that the provisions of the contract were unreasonable, the trial judge refused to enforce the contract by way of an injunction and instead awarded nominal damages. The District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, in a per curiam decision affirmed.
The decision Sub judice is in direct conflict with Data Supplies, Inc. v. Cowart, Supra. The court in Data Supplies held that where the trial court finds that there is a valid contract it would be error for the court not to grant an appropriate remedy. In the case Sub judice, the judge held the contract to be valid but refused to grant an injunction and awarded only nominal damages. There is conflict and we have jurisdiction. Fla.Const., art. V, § 3(b)(3), F.S.A.
At common law agreements not to compete were usually held void as a restraint on trade and as being contrary to public policy. Auto Club Affiliates, Inc. v. Donahey, 281 So.2d 239 (Fla.App.2d, 1973); Atlas Travel Services, Inc. v. Morelly, 98 So.2d 816 (Fla.App.1st, 1957). When the Legislature adopted Fla.Stat. § 542.12, F.S.A. (the controlling statute in this case), it recognized the public policy arguments against agreements restricting competition, but nonetheless found several exceptions from the general rule to be reasonable. The statute is designed to allow employers to prevent their employees and agents from learning their trade secrets, befriending their customers and then moving into competition with them. The agreement, however, must be reasonable as regards the time during and the area within which the employee is to be prevented from competing with the employer. Capelouto v. Orkin Exterminating Co., 183 So.2d 532 (Fla.1966). In determining the reasonableness of such an agreement, the courts...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hapney v. Central Garage, Inc.
...96-97 (Fla.1970), "that there was a 'reasonable interest' to be protected by the restraining covenant." Later in Miller Mechanical, Inc. v. Ruth, 300 So.2d 11, 12 (Fla.1974), the supreme court explained that section 542.12 "is designed to allow employers to prevent their employees and agent......
-
Sarasota Beverage Co. v. Johnson
...of a noncompetition agreement unreasonable, the court should modify the agreement and award an appropriate remedy. Miller Mechanical, Inc. v. Ruth, 300 So.2d 11 (Fla.1974). Xerographics, Inc. v. Thomas, 537 So.2d 140, 143 (Fla. 2d DCA This court's opinion in Xerographics is consistent with ......
-
Holloway v. Faw, Casson & Co.
...that courts reform overly broad restrictive covenants if the employers first show that they acted in good faith); Miller Mechanical, Inc. v. Ruth, 300 So.2d 11 (Fla.1974) (3 year, 50 mile noncompetition clause in employment contract, reduced to reasonable restriction); Raimonde v. Van Vlera......
-
Partylite Gifts, Inc. v. MacMillan
...in non-compete not fatal to enforcement of restrictive covenant when employer was national company). 17.See Miller Mech., Inc. v. Ruth, 300 So.2d 11, 12–13 (Fla.1974) (citing Kenco Chem. and Manufacturing Co. v. Railey, 286 So.2d 272 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)); Flickenger v. R.J. Fitzgerald & Co.......
-
Procedural remedies
...1084, 1086 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), Cordis Corporation v. Prooslin , 482 So.2d 486, 489 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Miller Mechanical, Inc. v. Ruth , 300 So.2d 11, 12 (Fla. 1974). With regard to covenants not to compete, the court shall not enter an injunction contrary to the public health, safety, or w......
-
The marginal utility of trade secrets.
...(Ct. App. 2004) (no trade secret where widespread dissemination, even if wrongful, destroyed secrecy). (271.) Miller Mech., Inc. v. Ruth, 300 So. 2d 11, 13 (Fla. 1974) ("It is precisely because damages are so difficult to show that injunctive relief becomes a favored remedy."); Kaplow &......