May It Please The Court: Weblog of legal news and observations, including a quote of the day and daily updates

Skip To Content

MIPTC Author:

Bookstore:


Listed in Latino Who's Who, June 2014
 Attorney
Categories [more]
General (1982)
Lawyer 2 Lawyer (283)
Latest Blogs
This Month's Posts [more]
S
M
T
W
T
F
S
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Links of Interest [more]
Locations of visitors to this page

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.


Quote of the Day - Competition is not only the basis of protection to the consumer, but is the incentive to progress. - Herbert Hoover
Adjust font size: A A+ A++
Claim Your Profile on Avvo

The Party Of The Second Part Didn't Buy The Party Of The First Part's Non-competition Agreement

Listen up buyers and sellers of businesses:  be careful what you sell and what you buy.  A recent case decided by the court of appeals here in Orange County warns us that contracts that sell more than can be sold are void.  In Strategix, Ltd. v. Infocrossing West, Inc. the parties sought to interpret a contract between the two.  Let me explain.

Strategix sold its business to Infocrossing's predecessor, SMS, and in that agreement, the parties made two agreements.  First, Strategix agreed it would not compete with SMS or solicit its own employees and customers away from SMS.  Second, it  agreed it would also not solicit SMS' (and by succession, Infocrossing's) employees or customers. 

There's just one problem.  It's the party of the second part, to quote an old lawyer's phrase. 

In California, there's a law that encourages competition between parties and disallows agreements that prevent competition between companies for either employees or customers.  It's Business & Professions Code section 16601.

In other words, a company can't stifle this kind of competition as part of a sale of one business to another.  It can, however, prevent the company that is selling its assets, customers and employees to the buying company from stealing those customers and employees back.

The other direction, however, is a no go.  Because the selling company has virtually no way of knowing who works for the buying company or the customers of the buying company.  In this case, Infocrossing had convinced the trial court to issue an injunction preventing Strategix from soliciting Infocrossing's employees or customers.  The appellate court reversed, invalidating the injunction. 

Strategix is free to compete with Infocrossing, and the court likewise refused to "blue pencil" the agreement between the two companies to save it. 

Like I said before, be careful what you think you're buying.

Printer friendly page Permalink Email to a friend Posted by J. Craig Williams on Tuesday, September 12, 2006 at 01:36 Comments Closed (0) |
 
Share Link