Zeff, Farrington & Associates, Inc. v. Farrington
| Decision Date | 27 January 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 23464,23464 |
| Citation | 168 Colo. 48,449 P.2d 813 |
| Parties | ZEFF, FARRINGTON & ASSOCIATES, INC., a Colorado corporation, Plaintiff in Error, v. W. D. FARRINGTON, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Alex Stephen Keller, Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Jay L. Gueck and Charles F. Brega, Hindry, Erickson & Meyer, Denver, for defendant in error.
At issue here is the reasonableness of a covenant not to compete in an employment contract involving professional services. We refer to the parties as they appeared in trial court, where plaintiff in error was plaintiff and defendant in error was defendant.
Plaintiff employer sued to enjoin defendant employee from violating a covenant not to compete and for damages. Plaintiff is engaged in the business of soil engineering and employed defendant as a soil engineer. Plaintiff and defendant, who are licensed civil engineers, both being represented by counsel, entered into a written contract of employment, which included the following provision:
Defendant voluntarily left plaintiff's employ after about seven months, and thereupon, engaged in the business of soil engineering within the prohibited 200-mile radius.
The trial court found that defendant, after terminating his employment with plaintiff, had engaged in the business of soil and foundation engineering in the Denver area and had performed work for two of plaintiff's former clients, but concluded that the covenant was unreasonable. The trial court modified the covenant by reducing the time to six months and the area to the City and County of Denver.
The evidence reflected the clear prospect that the plaintiff would suffer irreparable monetary damages as a result of the defendant's continued violation of the covenant. The evidence of actual monetary damage already experienced by the plaintiff was inconclusive. However, the thrust of this writ of error is on the trial court's failure to enforce the covenant, and not on the issue of actual damages already incurred by the plaintiff. Therefore, the sole issue to be resolved is this: Is a covenant not to compete for three years within a 200-mile radius reasonable under the circumstances of this case? We answer this question in the affirmative.
The rule is well settled in Colorado that reasonable covenants not to compete will be enforced and that what is reasonable depends upon the facts of each case. Knoebel Mercantile Company v. Siders, Colo., 439 P.2d 355; Fuller v. Brough, 159 Colo. 147, 411 P.2d 18; Addressograph-Multigraph Corporation v. Kelley, 146 Colo. 550, 362 P.2d 184; Mabray v. Williams, 132 Colo. 523, 291 P.2d 677; Ditus v. Beahm, 123 Colo. 550, 232 P.2d 184; Whittenberg v. Williams, 110 Colo. 418, 135 P.2d 228; Weber v. Nonpareil Baking Co., 85 Colo. 232, 274 P. 932; Garf v. Weitzman, 72 Colo. 136, 209 P. 809; Barrows v. McMurtry Mfg. Co., 54 Colo. 432, 131 P. 430; Freudenthal v. Espey, 45 Colo. 488, 102 P. 280, 26 L.R.A.,N.S., 961. We deem it significant that in 9 of the 10 cases cited, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reed Mill & Lumber Co., Inc. v. Jensen
...Gibson v. Eberle, supra, 762 P.2d at 779. Reasonableness turns on the facts of each case. Zeff, Farrington, & Assocs., Inc. v. Farrington, 168 Colo. 48, 50, 449 P.2d 813, 814 (1969). "To the extent that the legal determinations turn on questions of fact — for example whether a restrictive c......
-
Nutting v. Ram Southwest, Inc.
...(1970); Rivendell Forest Products, Ltd. v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 824 F.Supp. 961, 969 (D.Colo.1993); Zeff, Farrington & Associates, Inc. v. Farrington, 168 Colo. 48, 449 P.2d 813 (1969). There is no general rule regarding what is "reasonable" in such contracts. Rather each case must be exa......
-
Lucht's Concrete Pumping Inc. v. Horner
...Importantly, we note that all noncompetition agreements must be assessed for reasonableness. Zeff, Farrington & Assocs., Inc. v. Farrington, 168 Colo. 48, 49, 449 P.2d 813, 814 (1969) (holding that all covenants not to compete must be assessed for reasonableness). And, as with all restricti......
-
DBA Enterprises, Inc. v. Findlay
...to compete. See Sprague's Aetna Trailer Sales, Inc. v. Hruz, 172 Colo. 469, 474 P.2d 216 (1970); Zeff, Farrington & Associates, Inc. v. Farrington, 168 Colo. 48, 449 P.2d 813 (1969); Mabray v. Williams, 132 Colo. 523, 291 P.2d 677 (1955); Ditus v. Beahm, 123 Colo. 550, 232 P.2d 184 (1951). ......
-
Chapter 19 - § 19.2 • NONCOMPETITION AGREEMENTS
...a reasonable covenant not to compete. We here declare renewed approval of this precedent. Zeff, Farrington & Assocs., Inc. v. Farrington, 449 P.2d 813, 814 (Colo. 1969). § 19.2.2—Colorado Statute Restricting Noncompetition Agreements In 1973, the Colorado General Assembly enacted a statute ......
-
Chapter 19 - § 19.2 • NONCOMPETITION AGREEMENTS
...a reasonable covenant not to compete. We here declare renewed approval of this precedent. Zeff, Farrington & Assocs., Inc. v. Farrington, 449 P.2d 813, 814 (Colo. 1969). § 19.2.2—Colorado Statute Restricting Noncompetition Agreements In 1973, the Colorado General Assembly enacted a statute ......
-
A Field Guide to Intellectual Property
...A Statutory Solution?" 52 Den. L. J. (1975), p. 499, 530. 62. Zeff, Farmington & Associates, Inc. v. Farmington, Colo., 449 P. 2d 813, 168 Colo. 48 (Colo. 1969). Covenant not to compete for 1 year after termination within any city in which employer doing business was upheld as reasonable. W......
-
Drafting a Noncompetition Clause for the Colorado Contract
...489 (Colo.App. 1970); Ditus, supra, note 7. 26. See, Harrison, supra, note 10. 27. See, Zeff Farrington & Associates Inc. v. Farrington, 449 P.2d 813 (Colo. 1969); Gilson v. Angros, 491 P.2d 87 (Colo.App. 1971); and Harrison, supra, note 10. 28. See, note 25, supra. 29. See, Whittenber v. W......