Sam Leccia's Debut on hold

[gnukfu]

If the issue is a non-compete agreement/contract generally you have to show that there is a likelihood of irreparable harm/injury if the preliminary injunction is not granted.

If the case makes it to trial the judge reviews the agreement using a test typically developed under the case law of that state (common law). There are a number of factors that are considered. Geographic scope, length of time, norms within the industry, and public policy are some factors that are considered. It varies from state to state depending on how the case law developed within that state.

[LasciviousXXX]

The biggest positive I can see for Mr. Leccia is that the non-compete covenant could be considered unenforceable if the duration is ruled to be unreasonable or overly broad. And let's face it, 5 years as well as restrictions on a national level could be deemed an unreasonable restriction on Mr. Leccia's ability to earn a living. Logically, I could see the judge scraping the non-compete clause in this case.

[jesseboston81]

Originally Posted by LasciviousXXX

The biggest positive I can see for Mr. Leccia is that the non-compete covenant could be considered unenforceable if the duration is ruled to be unreasonable or overly broad. And let's face it, 5 years as well as restrictions on a national level could be deemed an unreasonable restriction on Mr. Leccia's ability to earn a living. Logically, I could see the judge scraping the non-compete clause in this case.

On a related issue, and this goes back to what George was saying about state common law, if this goes to trial and the five year duration is deemed too long, then it will come down to whether Florida's common law strikes the clause completely or whether it rewrites it to be enforceable. However, as with most cases, Sam and Oliva will likely reach an agreement and this won't ever make it to trial anyways.

[TheRiddick]

Originally Posted by LasciviousXXX

The biggest positive I can see for Mr. Leccia is that the non-compete covenant could be considered unenforceable if the duration is ruled to be unreasonable or overly broad. And let's face it, 5 years as well as restrictions on a national level could be deemed an unreasonable restriction on Mr. Leccia's ability to earn a living. Logically, I could see the judge scraping the non-compete clause in this case.

Non-compete is ALWAYS signed by BOTH parties. Since Leccia had no beef with the duration of the clause when he WILLINGLY signed it I can't imagine a judge now vacating it. If he signed the agreement in bad faith, as now it seems, then he should not be complaining. Besides, if there is a 5 year non-compete he DEFINITELY got a serious chunk of money up front, thus his ability "to make a living" is a dubious claim. Look up sales of Williams-Selyem and Kosta Brown wineries, just a couple of very visible examples, much longer non-compete clauses (10 years) and all enforceable without sellers claiming "duress".