BARCO CHEMICALS DIVISION, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
HERBERT N. COLTON, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Barco Chemicals appeals a directed verdict dismissing its action for injunctive relief to enforce a restrictive covenant in an employment contract. The court reversed, holding that a trial judge cannot refuse to enforce a valid restrictive covenant merely by finding it would produce unjust results, and that the defendant's evidence was insufficient to support a directed verdict on the grounds asserted.
A trial court may not refuse to enforce a valid contract upon a general finding that enforcement will produce unjust results. The court's discretion under Florida Statute Section 542.12 to enforce restrictive covenants by injunction must be reasonably exercised, and cannot be withheld when the proofs reveal no other alternative. A directed verdict is improper when the defendant's factual contentions would not be justified on such a motion.
[1] A court may not refuse to enforce a valid contract based solely on a general finding that enforcement would produce unjust results.
[2] The discretion granted to a court to enforce restrictive covenants is not absolute or arbitrary and must be reasonably exercised.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The trial judge may not refuse to enforce a valid contract upon a general finding that enforcement will produce "unjust results."”
Establishes the core holding that trial courts lack discretion to refuse enforcement of valid restrictive covenants based merely on general notions of injustice.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBarco Chemicals sued Herbert Colton for injunctive relief to enforce a restrictive covenant against competition contained in an employment contract be…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Inferences From Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant, plaintiff in the trial court, seeks review of an adverse final judgment entered pursuant to a directed verdict for the defendant in an action for injunctive relief. The action is based upon a restrictive covenant against competition in an employment contract entered into between the parties.
The trial court has set forth the basis of the directed verdict as follows:
“THIS CAUSE having come on to be heard for Final Hearing, and the Court having heard testimony from witnesses for the Plaintiff and argument of counsel on Defendant’s Motion for Directed Verdict at the close of Plaintiff’s case, and the Court, being otherwise fully advised in the premises, finds as follows:
“Based on Florida Statute Section 542.12 [F.S.A.] and the language of Storz Broadcasting Co. v. Courtney, [Fla.App.,] 178 So. 2d 40 and other cases, the Court finds that the employment agreement will result in unjust results when applied to this Defendant and that the Plaintiff has not sustained its burden and has failed to establish a prima facie case.”
* ‡
The trial court’s reliance upon Storz Broadcasting Co. v. Courtney, Fla.App. 1965, 178 So. 2d 40, is misplaced in view of the fact that the holding in that case was that an employee’s contract not to engage in a competing business will not be construed to extend beyond the proper import or further than the language of the contract absolutely requires.
The trial judge may not refuse to enforce a valid contract upon a general finding that enforcement will produce “unjust results.” In Storz Broadcasting Co. v. Courtney, supra, this court pointed out:
* * * * * *
“Nor was the trial court free to elect not to enforce the contract, if thus breached. The limit on the discretion referred to in the statute was disclosed in an opinion prepared by Chief Judge Sturgis in the first district court of appeal in Atlas Travel Service v. Morelly, Fla.App.1957, 98 So. 2d 816, 818.”
* * ^ * * *
The opinion in Atlas Travel Service, referred to in the quotation, states:
if: 5fí
“F.S. § 542.12, F.S.A. clearly supersedes the common-law rule enunciated in Love v. Miami Laundry Co., supra, 118 Fla. 137, 160 So. 35. The permisso-ry language of the statute, whereby agreements of the character in suit 'may’, in the 'discretion’ of the court, ‘be enforced by injunction,’ does not imply that the court is vested with an absolute or arbitrary discretion, and is construed as requiring that the discretion shall be reasonably exercised to the end that the object of the statute may not be nulli.fied. The relief cannot be withheld when the proofs, as in the case on appeal, reveal no other alternative. Weston v. Jones, 41 Fla. 188, 25 So. 888; Mitchell v. Duncan, 7 Fla. 13, 14.”
* * * * * *
See also Akey v. Murphy, Fla. 1960, 238 So. 2d 94, 97.
The appellee contends that the actual basis for the trial court’s decision was not the exercise of discretion because of the bare holding that “the employment agreement will result in unjust results when applied to this defendant,” but rather that plaintiff’s evidence, considered as whole, showed that the contract was not in force because it had already been breached by the plaintiff. Our review of the record convinces us that such a conclusion cannot be supported upon this record. Defendant appears to contend that the terms of his employment were changed and that he was thereby relieved of the provisions of the contract. This factual conclusion would not have been justified upon a motion for directed verdict. Upon such motion, the plaintiff is entitled to all reasonable inferences from the evidence, and the record must be viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff’s position. Hartnett v. Fowler, Fla.1957, 94 So. 2d 724, and Tillman v. Baskin, Fla.1972, 260 So. 2d 509.
Accordingly, the judgment based upon the directed verdict is reversed and this cause is remanded for such further proceedings as the court shall find necessary under the views herein expressed.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Twenty Four Collection, Inc. v. Keller, 389 So. 2d 1062 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…tract on the basis of a finding, as was the case below, that enforcement of its terms would produce an “unjust result” in the form of an overly burdensome effect upon the employee. We specifically so held in Barco Chemicals Division, Inc. v. Colten, 296 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). Accord, 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,…
-
SUN Elastic Corp. v. O.B. Indus., 603 So. 2d 516 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…. 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 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Storz Broadcasting Co. v. Courtney, 178 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965), cert. denied, 188 So. 2d 315 (Fla.1966); American Bldg. Maintenance Co. v. Fogelman, 167 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964); Atlas Travel Serv., Inc. v. Morelly, 98…
-
Lincare Holdings, Inc. v. Ford, 307 So. 3d 905 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020)
Authorities Cited
- Easter Mae Tillman v. Baskin, 260 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 1972)
- Hartnett v. Fowler, 94 So. 2d 724 (Fla. 1957)
- Love v. Miami Laundry Co., 118 Fla. 137 (Fla. 1934)
- Atlas Travel Serv., Inc. v. Morelly, 98 So. 2d 816 (Fla. 1st DCA 1957)
- Storz Broad. Co. v. Courtney, 178 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Weston v. Calhoun Jones, 41 Fla. 188 (Fla. 1899)
- Mitchell v. Wm. J. J. Duncan, 7 Fla. 13 (Fla. 1857)
- Akey v. Murphy, 238 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 1970)