The general rule in Wisconsin is: (a) 　Courts will literally interpret unambiguous contracts; and (b) extrinsic evidence will be used to interpret ambiguous contracts. A recent appellate court decision applied this general rule with respect to noncompete agreements holding that the trial court's finding that the noncompete was ambiguous was, without additional findings, not enough to find the agreement unenforceable. See
Is an employee who enters into a settlement agreement with an employer entitled to the same protections of statutes that place restrictions on how broad a noncompete can be? A recent Virginia opinion says no. See http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7181310524699665420&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
The court battle between IBM and Dell over the employment of former IBM M&A chief David Johnson provides even more evidence that Noncompete Agreements are highly unique contracts that often lead to some highly unique arguments in litgation. It appears Mr. Johnson is arguing that because he “intentionally” signed the noncompete on the wrong line, it is not valid. In other types of transactions (and maybe this one too) this type of admission would most likely lead to a misrepresentation, fraudulent inducement, or similar common law claim that could open up a party to significant liability.
Enter keywords:
