Hopper v All-Pet Animal Clinic 861 P.2d 531 (1990).  In 1988 Glenna Hopper accepted part-time employment with the All-Pet Animal Clinic in Laramie, Wyoming.  Six months later she was offered full-time employment. The contract specified a non-compete clause which prohibited her from working as a small-animal vet in Laramie for three years following termination.  In 1991 the owner of All-Pet heard a rumor that she was considering leaving.  He demanded a $40,000 buy out of the non-compete clause.  She refused.  He fired her. She opened another clinic.  The court found that some of the clients of her new clinic had been clients of All-Pet.

a.  What is the property right at issue in this case?

b.  What might be included in the value of the non-compete clause for All-Pet?  That is, why would they want Dr. Hopper to sign such a clause?  Give some examples.

c.  Suppose that the court rules in favor of Dr. Hopper and that subsequent similar cases deny enforcement of non-compete clauses. Would you expect that the outcomes would be the same as if the court ruled in favor of All-Pet.  That is, does the Coase Theorem apply here?  Why or why not?  Explain.

d. Now suppose that the court rules in favor of All-Pet.  Explain which of the following losses for All-Pet should be compensated. Efficiency arguments only.

i.  lost profits due to previous customers patronizing Dr. Hopper.

ii.  lost profits due to the fact that with competition All-Pet was forced to lower prices

iii.  cost of training courses that All-Pet paid for Dr. Hopper.

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

a The property right at issue in this case is the right to engage in a trade occupation or profession In 1988 Gl enna Ho pper accepted part time emplo... View the full answer