International Business MacHines Corp. v. Johnson
629 F. Supp. 2d 321 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When an offeree's manifestation of acceptance is ambiguous, the offeror's subsequent conduct determines whether a binding contract was formed. If the offeror's actions indicate that it did not consider the ambiguous act to be a valid acceptance, there is no mutual assent and no enforceable contract.
Facts:
- David L. Johnson, a long-time executive at International Business Machines Corporation (IBM), was promoted to Vice President of Corporate Development.
- In 2005, IBM began requiring senior executives, including Johnson, to sign non-competition agreements to remain eligible for equity grants.
- Johnson was reluctant to sign due to concerns about his promotional opportunities at IBM, which he felt had been promised but were not materializing.
- To extend his time to decide before a June 1, 2005 deadline, Johnson deliberately signed the non-competition agreement on the signature line reserved for IBM, believing this would render it invalid, and returned it.
- In the Fall of 2005, IBM returned the improperly signed agreement to Johnson with a new blank copy and requested that he sign it on the correct employee line. IBM's designated representative never countersigned Johnson's original submission.
- Around the same time, Johnson was informed by his superior that he would not be considered for a General Manager position, contrary to Johnson's previous understanding.
- Following this conversation, Johnson explicitly refused all of IBM's subsequent requests over the next year to properly sign the non-competition agreement.
- Despite his refusal to re-sign the agreement, Johnson continued to receive his annual equity awards from 2005 through 2008, before resigning to accept a position as Senior Vice President of Strategy at Dell Inc., an IBM competitor.
Procedural Posture:
- International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) filed a diversity action against its former employee, David L. Johnson, in the U.S. District Court.
- IBM sought a preliminary injunction to enjoin Johnson from working for its competitor, Dell Inc., based on an alleged breach of a non-competition agreement.
- At an initial hearing, the first assigned judge raised doubts about whether the non-competition agreement had been validly executed.
- The court permitted Johnson to begin his employment at Dell but with significant restrictions, including a prohibition on advising Dell on strategy or disclosing IBM's confidential information.
- The court scheduled a preliminary injunction hearing to allow for expedited discovery on the contract formation issue.
- The case was then transferred to a different judge in the same District Court, who held the preliminary injunction hearing.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an employee's ambiguous act of signing a non-competition agreement on the signature line designated for the employer constitute a valid acceptance creating an enforceable contract, when the employer's subsequent conduct demonstrates it did not consider the agreement to be executed?
Opinions:
Majority - Stephen C. Robinson, District Judge
No. An employee's ambiguous act of signing a non-competition agreement on the employer's signature line does not constitute a valid acceptance when the employer's subsequent conduct indicates it did not believe a contract had been formed. Under New York law, contract formation requires a clear, unambiguous, and unequivocal acceptance. Johnson's act of signing on the wrong line was objectively ambiguous. When an acceptance is ambiguous, the offeree assumes the risk of the offeror's interpretation, and the offeror's reaction controls whether a contract is formed. IBM's conduct demonstrated it did not consider Johnson's signature to be a valid acceptance. IBM returned the original document, failed to have its own representative sign it in violation of internal protocols, repeatedly requested Johnson to re-sign a new agreement, and an HR executive stated in an email that the agreement was not 'booked' because it was signed in the wrong place. Therefore, there was no objective meeting of the minds sufficient to create a binding contract.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle that contract formation depends on an objective meeting of the minds, evidenced by the parties' words and deeds, not their secret intentions. It clarifies that in cases of ambiguous acceptance, the offeror's subsequent conduct is critical evidence of whether it considered a contract to be formed. The ruling serves as a strong reminder for businesses to adhere to their own contract execution protocols and to address ambiguous situations decisively. By acting as if no contract existed, IBM forfeited its ability to later claim one was enforceable, highlighting that a party's course of conduct can override a single, ambiguous act of purported assent.
Unlock the full brief for International Business MacHines Corp. v. Johnson