Communication Technical Systems, Inc., (CTS) began providing computer programming services for Gateway 2000, Inc., (Gateway), in July
Question:
In December, Densmore expressed his dissatisfaction with CTS to a Gateway employee, who suggested that Densmore talk to Gateway’s legal counsel about possibly being hired by Gateway. Densmore talked to Gateway counsel, but they refused to discuss the possibility, citing the “Agreement Not to Recruit.” On December 15, Gateway gave CTS proper 30-day notice of its intent to terminate CTS’s services. On January 20, 1995, Densmore resigned from CTS to begin his own consulting firm, Corinium Consulting, Inc. Densmore contacted Gateway, stating that he was now free to program for Gateway and was free of any restrictions imposed by the “Agreement Not to recruit.” Three days later, Gateway hired Densmore’s firm for a five-month programming job.
Section 53-9-8 of the South Dakota statutes states: “Every contract restraining exercise of a lawful profession, trade, or business is void to that extent ..” Section 53-9-11 provides an important exception; however, that allows noncompete covenants. CTS brought this suit against Densmore for breach of the “Agreement Not to Recruit.” How should the court rule on CTS’s claim, and why?
Fantastic news! We've Found the answer you've been seeking!
Step by Step Answer:
Related Book For
Question Posted: