Douglass was a highly trained servicer of hardnesstesting machinery, who was employed by PageWilson.

Douglass was a highly trained servicer of hardnesstesting
machinery, who was employed by PageWilson. In August and April 1983, Douglass
signed two employment agreements governing the terms and conditions of his
employment with Page-Wilson. The first agreement prohibited Douglass, while he
was working for Page-Wilson and for one year after the termination of his
employment, from using, to PageWilson’s detriment, any of its customer list or
other intellectual property acquired from his job there. The second agreement,
which applied to the same time period, prohibited Douglass from accepting
View complete question »

Douglass was a highly trained servicer of hardnesstesting
machinery, who was employed by PageWilson. In August and April 1983, Douglass
signed two employment agreements governing the terms and conditions of his
employment with Page-Wilson. The first agreement prohibited Douglass, while he
was working for Page-Wilson and for one year after the termination of his
employment, from using, to PageWilson’s detriment, any of its customer list or
other intellectual property acquired from his job there. The second agreement,
which applied to the same time period, prohibited Douglass from accepting
employment from or serving as a consultant to any business that was in
competition with Page-Wilson. In April 1987, Canrad Corporation purchased all
assets and contractual rights of Page-Wilson, including Douglass’s two
employment contracts. Special Products Manufacturing, a wholly owned subsidiary
of Canrad, assumed plant operations. Douglas worked for Special Products until
his resignation in February 1988. Shortly after that time, Special Products
filed suit against Douglass, alleging that Douglass had affixed his name and
home telephone number to the machines he serviced, so that the ensuing
maintenance calls would reach him personally. It also alleged that, following
his resignation, Douglass established a competing business and actively
solicited Special Products’ clientele. Douglass claims that Special Products
did not have the right to enforce the agreements not to compete. Is Douglass
correct?

View less »