Providing in-depth discussions, thought, creative, and innovative insights on Business Law innovative insights
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
…
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
In Frank D. Gillitzer Electric Co.v. Andersen, a Wisconsin Appellate Court found that a provision in an employment contract that required an employee to repay certain training costs if the employee did not stay with the employer for four years after the training was completed did not violate Wis. Stats. § 103.465. This was …
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…
In D.L. Anderson’s Lakeside Leisure Co. v. Anderson, 2008 WI 126 (filed 2 Dec. 2008) the Wisconsin Supreme Court addressed the interplay between tradenames, noncompete agreeements, and tort law. Anderson involved an asset purchase agreement whereby Seller agreed to sell certain assets, including seller’s tradename, to buyer and seller agreed to a noncompete agreement with…