Royal Services, Inc. v. Williams, 75--1154
| Decision Date | 15 June 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 75--1154,75--1154 |
| Citation | 334 So.2d 154 |
| Parties | 1976-2 Trade Cases P 61,159 ROYAL SERVICES, INC., a Florida Corporation, Appellant, v. Henry J. WILLIAMS and Universal Maintenance and Management Company, a corporation, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Millar & Lally, Jacksonville, for appellant.
Phillips & Phillips, Miami, for appellees.
Before BARKDULL, C.J., HENDRY, J., and CHARLES CARROLL (Ret.), Associate Judge.
This is an appeal by the plaintiff below from an adverse judgment, in two actions which were consolidated in the trial court.
On July 12, 1974, the appellant Royal Services, Inc. filed an action against the appellee, Henry J. Williams, alleging breach by the latter of a non-compete contract and alleging loss resulting therefrom, seeking injunctive relief to enforce the contract and judgment for damages. A separate action was filed by Royal against the appellee Universal Maintenance and Management Co., seeking damages for alleged tortious interference by Universal with the Royal-Williams contract relationship.
The judgment entered in favor of the defendants, following trial of the actions before the court, set forth the facts as follows:
'The Plaintiff is engaged in the business of providing janitorial and cleaning services for various customers in Dade County, Florida.
That the Defendant, HENRY WILLIAMS, was an unskilled employee of the Plaintiff, prior to June 1, 1974.
The Plaintiff was employed under a contract with the Keyes Management Company to perform cleaning and janitorial services in the Seybold Building, which services were terminated by the Keyes Management Company, on May 15, 1974.
The Seybold Building, was sold, and the management of said Building transferred to Seybold Associates, a limited partnership, on or about May 15, 1974.
The Seybold Associates did employ the services of the Plaintiff, for a period of two (2) weeks, and said services were terminated on May 31, 1974.
The Defendant, UNIVERSAL MAINTENANCE AND MANAGEMENT CO., was thereafter engaged to perform janitorial and cleaning services solely in the Seybold Building.
The Defendant, HENRY WILLIAMS, was employed by the Plaintiff on a certain written agreement dated July 9, 1971, which agreement contained no expiration date, but was for an undeterminable period of time. Said Agreement contained certain provisions wherein the Defendant, HENRY WILLIAMS, specifically agreed not to engage in the same business as maintained by the Plaintiff for a period of eighteen (18) months after termination of his employment.
The Defendant, HENRY WILLIAMS, did on or about May 31, 1974, terminate his employment with the Plaintiff.
On or about June 1, 1974, the Defendant, HENRY WILLIAMS, was employed by the Defendant, UNIVERSAL MAINTENANCE AND MANAGEMENT CO., a Florida Corporation.
The Defendant, UNIVERSAL MAINTENANCE AND MANAGEMENT CO., did not influence nor did it exercise any control in regard to the decision of the Defendant, HENRY WILLIAMS, to terminate his employment with the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff has wholly failed to show by testimony or documentary evidence, that it has sustained any loss of monies or other damage by virtue of the termination of employment of HENRY WILLIAMS, and his subsequent employment with the Defendant, UNIVERSAL MAINTENANCE AND MANAGEMENT CO., a Florida Corporation.
The Court further finds that there is no testimony by any of the witnesses, nor any documentary proof before the Court to establish any basis to reflect any loss sustained by the Plaintiff herein, * * *.'
Following the above findings, the trial court held the restrictive covenants made by Williams were not reasonable in that they went 'beyond the scope of protecting any interest of the employer', and would be unduly and harsh and oppressive to Williams. Further, the court held '(T)hat the agreement between the parties herein cannot be enforced, for that such agreement amounts to an undue and an unreasonable restraint of trade and would be detrimental to the public welfare and obnoxious to public policy'.
As an exception to the law that contracts by which anyone is restrained from exercising a lawful profession, trade or business is void (§ 542.12(1), Fla.Stat., F.S.A.), it is provided by statute (§ 542.12(2), Fla.Stat., F.S.A.) that 'one who is employed as an agent or employee may agree with his employer, to refrain from carrying on or engaging in a similar business and from soliciting old customers of such employer within a reasonably limited time and area, * * * so long as such employer continues to carry on a like business therein.' That statutory provision has been held to be valid. Capelouto v. Orkin Exterminating Co....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sun Elastic Corp. v. O.B. Industries
...Empiregas, Inc. of Pensacola v. Thomas, 359 So.2d 15 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), dismissed, 364 So.2d 893 (Fla.1978); Royal Servs., Inc. 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 (......
-
In Re Maxxim Medical Group Inc.
...(quoting Cedar Hills Prop. Corp. v. Eastern Fed. Corp., 575 So.2d 673, 676 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)). 202. See Royal Servs., Inc. v. Williams, 334 So.2d 154 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976) (absent evidence that the present employer influenced or exercised any control in regard to the decision of the former e......
-
Twenty Four Collection, Inc. v. Keller, 80-181
...Empiregas, Inc., of Pensacola v. Thomas, 359 So.2d 15 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), dismissed, 364 So.2d 893 (Fla.1978); Royal Services, Inc. v. Williams, 334 So.2d 154 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Foster and Company, Inc. v. Snodgrass, 333 So.2d 521 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); Storz Broadcasting Co. v. Courtney, 17......
-
Michele Pommier Models, Inc. v. Diel, 3D03-3353.
...non-compete period expiring. Id.; Kverne v. Rollins Protective Servs. Co., 515 So.2d 1320 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Royal Services, Inc. v. Williams, 334 So.2d 154 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Uni-Chem v. Maret, 338 So.2d 885 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). In this case, Wilhelmina filed one week after the period ran......