Robbins v. Finlay
645 P.2d 623, 1982 Utah LEXIS 927 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A stipulated damages clause is enforceable if it represents a reasonable forecast of just compensation for a harm that is difficult to estimate. However, a covenant not to compete is unenforceable if it primarily serves to limit competition or restrain an employee's right to engage in a common calling, rather than protecting a legitimate employer interest like trade secrets or goodwill.
Facts:
- Douglas Finlay, an experienced hearing aid salesman, worked for Robbins, dba Beltone Utah (Beltone).
- On April 3, 1974, Finlay signed an employment contract that included two key provisions: a $5,000 stipulated damages clause for misusing customer leads, and a $3,000 stipulated damages clause for competing with Beltone within its service area for one year after termination of employment.
- In August 1975, Finlay expressed dissatisfaction with his contract and requested new terms, but no new agreement was reached.
- In November 1975, while still employed by Beltone, Finlay sold competitors' hearing aids to three potential customers who were identified through a Beltone-sponsored clinic.
- Finlay also induced another Beltone employee to sell hearing aids for a company Finlay had formed, using leads generated from a Beltone clinic.
- In December 1975, Finlay terminated his employment with Beltone and opened his own hearing aid sales business within Beltone's service area.
- As of November 1976, almost a year after leaving, Finlay was still in possession of a list containing the names of 154 potential Beltone customers.
Procedural Posture:
- Robbins, dba Beltone Utah (plaintiff), sued Douglas Finlay (defendant) in a Utah trial court for breach of an employment contract.
- A jury returned a verdict in favor of Beltone, finding that Finlay had breached both the covenant regarding customer leads and the covenant not to compete.
- The trial court entered a judgment on the verdict, awarding Beltone the stipulated damages of $5,000 for the customer leads breach, $3,000 for the non-compete breach, and $2,500 in attorney’s fees.
- Finlay, as the defendant-appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Utah Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under Utah law, is a stipulated damages provision for the misuse of confidential customer leads an unenforceable penalty, and is a covenant not to compete that restricts a salesman from working in his field for one year an unreasonable restraint of trade?
Opinions:
Majority - Stewart, Justice
No as to the first question; Yes as to the second. A stipulated damages provision for misuse of customer leads is enforceable if it is a reasonable forecast of just compensation for a harm that is difficult to calculate. However, a covenant not to compete is an unreasonable and unenforceable restraint when it serves only to limit competition from a former employee engaged in a common calling, rather than to protect a legitimate business interest. The court found the $5,000 for misuse of customer leads was a reasonable pre-estimate of damages, given that the potential loss of business was difficult to quantify and could be substantial. In contrast, the covenant not to compete was deemed unenforceable because Finlay's job as a salesman was a 'common calling' that did not involve unique skills, trade secrets, or the creation of significant company goodwill. The skills and efficiency Finlay developed belonged to him, and the covenant did nothing more than baldly restrain competition, which is impermissible. Since the customer leads were already protected by the separate $5,000 clause, the non-compete agreement was not necessary to protect that interest.
Analysis:
This case provides a crucial distinction between enforceable and unenforceable restrictive covenants in employment contracts. It affirms the validity of liquidated damages clauses tied to specific, protectable business interests like trade secrets (customer lists), provided the amount is a reasonable pre-estimate of hard-to-calculate harm. Conversely, it sets a strong precedent against broad non-compete agreements that merely prevent an employee from using general skills and experience acquired on the job. The ruling limits an employer's ability to restrict post-employment competition unless it can demonstrate a specific, legitimate interest beyond preventing ordinary competition, such as protecting unique goodwill created by the employee or extraordinary investment in their training.
