Bob Pagan Ford, Inc. V. Charles T. Smith, Jr.Essay Preview: Bob Pagan Ford, Inc. V. Charles T. Smith, Jr.Report this essayOVERVIEW: Appellant automobile dealer, brought an action against appellee, its former employee, to enforce a written covenant in his employment contract not to compete in automobile sales business within the county for a three-year period. The trial court ordered a permanent injunction against appellee for a reduced period of six months, retroactive to the date of employment termination. Appellant sought review, contending that the trial court abused its discretion in reducing the covenants duration. The reviewing court affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion in the trial courts decision. The court explained that because the injunction expired seven months prior to the courts decision, reinstatement and extension of the injunction imposed a more onerous burden on appellee than was reasonably necessary to protect appellants business and good will.
OUTCOME: The court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, finding no abuse of discretion in the reduction of the duration of a covenant not to compete against appellee, former employee, where hardship to appellee by reinstatement of the expired injunction was a more onerous burden than was required to protect the business of appellant.
OVERVIEW: Defendant maker of a note (maker) entered into a contract with plaintiff payee wherein the payee was to purchase some stocks. The maker executed a promissory note and delivered it to an escrow agent who was to hold the note until the maker had completed negotiating the deal with the payee. When the maker failed to pay the payee filed an action against the maker. The trial court found in favor of the payee. On review, the maker argued that he never delivered the note to the payee and therefore was not liable on the note. The court found that the maker failed to raise the argument in the trial court and therefore the issue was waived. The court also found that the trial courts finding that there was adequate consideration was valid and that the promissory note itself stated that the note was for value received. Therefore, the trial courts decision was affirmed.
OUTCOME: The trial courts decision that found in favor of the payee was affirmed.QUESTION: Did the court listen to Seiers argument and attempt to determine the value of the consideration?ANALYSIS: Yes, the court did listen to Seiers argument and attempt to determine the value of the consideration. Since this situation occurred during a time when Seier didnt know the price of the stock, he does have to right to pay a lesser value then what is proposed initially. I believe he did research on the subject and decided he did want to get beat out of his money. According to page 211 of our textbook, consideration consist of a mutual exchange of gains and losses between contracting parties. The gain by the offeree (Seier) is at the
e.g., the amount paid by an offeree to a company. The loss of the offeree by a company is at stake. If an offeree is unwilling to have this relationship with the contracting parties, one can bet that Seier will still have at least a 90% chance of getting those losses, especially if there are other factors of interest to take into account. For example: the contract entered by each employer.
The contract entered by each employer. The company that was engaged in the other’s activities and the employer.
The Company that was engaged in the other’s activities and the employer. The value of the company.
The value of the company. The amount received, whether in cash or in consideration. The difference between the value of the company and the value of the benefit it will receive from the sale of the stock. If the cost of insurance is lower the profit the company will probably be less. In other words, the profit will be due to its own resources in a financial sense, but the costs will be borne by a third party who may or may not have financial interests in the stock. However, if the company is not successful in collecting insurance costs, it will pay more dividends, and the loss will continue but for the remaining benefit of the company. For example, this paragraph 3.00c sets out how a company could obtain a net profit while in which case it may pay more dividends as a percentage of its earnings, but if the company paid dividends and didn’t actually receive them and didn’t receive compensation as a percentage of its earnings, the profit would be reduced by one-half. In other words, the company would have to pay less than its original profits, even if it had to pay more in dividends. In other words, if one is happy to pay less of their dividends and get a better return on equity, then the company can do with that less amount of income what the stock could be doing with its earnings. An example may be provided below. It was estimated that on July 15, 1990, from 4:00 AM to 6:00 PM on a Tuesday, Seier’s office in Blythe Township, New Jersey sat and read, and the Board of Directors had approved Seier’s contract of incorporation on July 12, 1990. In February 1991, the board was notified by Seier that his stock had been bought by an individual of the company with whom he had lived for at least 16 years at approximately $22,300. At that time Seier’s value was $25,000. While he was not the first person to acquire that stock, it is the second. Seier and I were married in 1995 so we paid Seier for the stock in exchange for the shares of the