In 1983, J & K Ventures, Inc., signed a 10-year franchise agreement with American Speedy Printing Centers with plans to establish a printing center in Tampa, Florida. In addition, J & K Ventures signed a nondisclosure agreement that also contained a covenant not to compete within a 10-mile radius of the franchise. J & K Ventures operated the Tampa printing center until July 1993, as agreed in the franchise agreement. Toward the end of the 10 years, however, the relationship between the two companies deteriorated, so J & K Ventures decided to allow the franchise agreement to expire without renewal. No other Speedy franchises operated within the 10-mile radius agreed to under the franchise agreement. Following the expiration of the agreement, J & K Ventures maintained a printing center at the same location and telephone number under the name Express Printing Center. Express Printing Center expanded its basis of operations and offered more expanded services under the new name.

Speedy brought suit for violation of the noncompetition covenants. J & K Ventures asserted that Florida Statute Section 542.33(2)(b) makes the noncompete agreement void. Section 542.33(2)(b) states: “[Licensee] may agree with the licensor to refrain from carrying on or engaging in a similar business and from soliciting old customers within a reasonable limited time and area, so long as the licensor .continues to carry on a like business therein.” How should the court rule on Speedy’s claim, and why?