Non-compete question

[quincy]

I see where you came upon the blurb that Minnesota courts are empowered to modify and reform a covenant not to compete in order to render its consequences less restrictive. But it is an absolute irresponsible, unsupportable fallacy! ...

Do you want to tell that to the Minnesota Supreme Court?

Klick v. Crosstown State Bank, Inc. v. Crosstown State Bank of Ham Lake, 372 N.W. 2d 85 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985):

https://casetext.com/case/klick-v-crosstown-state-bank-of-ham-lake

From Klick: “Under the blue pencil doctrine, as it has developed in Minnesota, a court can take an overly broad restriction and enforce it only to the extent that it is reasonable.”

The Klick Court references Davies Davies Agency, Inc. v. Davies, 298 N.W. 2d 127 (Minn. 1980), a case about which the Minnesota Supreme Court said: “...in employment cases, a court should be permitted to make changes such as those made by the trial court in this case rather than be compelled to strike down the entire agreement as unreasonable.”


(now I am off to enjoy an evening with Yo-Yo Ma and the Detroit Symphony Orchestra)

 

[Litigator22]

Do you want to tell that to the Minnesota Supreme Court?

Klick v. Crosstown State Bank, Inc. v. Crosstown State Bank of Ham Lake, 372 N.W. 2d 85 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985):

https://casetext.com/case/klick-v-crosstown-state-bank-of-ham-lake

Touché! You win again, Q.

However . . . (even a condemned man is allowed a final word with the executioner) did you make note of the fact that a majority four (4) of the seven (7) Minnesota Supreme Court Justices declined to participate in the decision making in Davies (1980).

Are you aware of any similar Minnesota case law wherein the high court has upheld a trial court having thusly blue penciled an employment contract? It wasn't so in Kick.

Did you take notice that in Kick the court was speaking purely inferentially in reference to Davies ["the logical inference from this statement is . . .) and most noteworthy this bit of vagueness from Kick:

"No cases say that the court MUST do so (meaning blue pencil). As the Davies court said a court SHOULD be permitted to make such changes." (Emphasis mine)

The confusing unavoidable conclusion seems to be that Minnesota's variable and unpredictable rule of law in such instances is not so much that a trial court is authorized to blue pencil an employment contract to suit its fancy, but that it's okay if they choose to do so!

I see no need to cite from the vast body of law denouncing such judicial roll the dice, fuzziness.

Hoping that you enjoyed whatever it was that you went to enjoy. Here the highlight of evening is watching the crows gather to roost and betting on the number of the tree branches that fail.

Lat

 

[quincy]

First, I am confident that the music of Yo-Yo Ma and the Detroit Symphony Orchestra was far more soothing to the soul than the caws, rattles and clacks of the crows on your tree branches - although I admit to appreciating the sounds of them all.

Here is a link to the Davies Davies case, for those who might be interested:

https://law.justia.com/cases/minnesota/supreme-court/1980/49594-1.html

In the states I am familiar with that allow for judges to blue pencil contracts, it has always been left to the discretion of the judge whether to modify or void. Minnesota is no different in that respect.

 

[Bali Hai Again]

First, I am confident that the music of Yo-Yo Ma and the Detroit Symphony Orchestra was far more soothing to the soul than the caws, rattles and clacks of the crows in your tree branches - although I admit to appreciating the sounds of them all.

I was hoping you were kidding! I thought a Downtown Hoedown in Motown was more your style.

 

[adjusterjack]

I see where you came upon the blurb that Minnesota courts are empowered to modify and reform a covenant not to compete in order to render its consequences less restrictive. But it is an absolute irresponsible, unsupportable fallacy!

Maybe it is - the way you wrote that sentence.

But that's not what quincy wrote.

In fact, you also wrote

They may at times refuse to enforce the writing such as deeming it unconscionable, one of adhesion, calling for illegal conduct, against established public policy, etc., etc.,

Which is what quincy is referring to.

If you want to comment on what somebody writes, comment on what they actually write, not on what you imagine they write.

 

[quincy]

I was hoping you were kidding! I thought a Downtown Hoedown in Motown was more your style.

Bali Hai, I used to go to the Hoedowns in Detroit when they were held outside over several days in Hart Plaza - and the Hoedowns were free for anyone and everyone to attend. They were fun. But now they are no longer held at Hart Plaza and you have to buy a ticket.

The link I originally posted to the Davies Davies case apparently was not a good link. It has now been replaced with a working link.