Sonny's Pizza, Inc. v. Braley
1992 WL 410170, 612 So. 2d 844 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Parties to a contract may not stipulate to the issuance of an injunction or that a breach constitutes irreparable injury, as the determination of whether irreparable injury exists to warrant an injunction is a question of law for the court to decide.
Facts:
- On October 31, 1988, Sonny's Pizza, Inc. entered into a Licensing Agreement with Monte G. and Becky L. Braley.
- The agreement allowed the Braleys to use the 'Sonny's Pizza' name and business methods in exchange for fees and a percentage of sales.
- The contract contained a non-competition clause prohibiting the Braleys from operating a similar business within a three-mile radius for 18 months after the 'termination' of the license.
- A separate clause stated that a violation of the non-compete agreement would result in 'irreparable injury' and that the Braleys consented to the issuance of an injunction to prohibit any such violation.
- The Licensing Agreement expired by its own terms on November 1, 1991.
- After the expiration date, the Braleys changed their restaurant's name to 'Monte's Pizza' and continued to operate in the same location.
Procedural Posture:
- Sonny's Pizza, Inc. filed a petition in the trial court seeking a preliminary injunction against Monte G. and Becky L. Braley.
- The trial court denied the request for a preliminary injunction, ruling that parties cannot contractually agree to the issuance of an injunction if the necessary legal conditions are not met.
- Sonny's Pizza, Inc., as plaintiff-appellant, appealed the trial court's decision to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit. The Braleys are the appellees.
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 a contractual provision in which a party consents to the issuance of an injunction and acknowledges that a breach would cause irreparable injury bind a court to issue the injunction without an independent judicial finding of irreparable harm?
Opinions:
Majority - Lottinger, C.J.
No. A contractual provision stipulating to an injunction and irreparable injury is not binding on a court because parties cannot contractually dispense with the procedural and legal requisites for an injunction. The court reasoned that allowing parties to contractually provide for irreparable injury would circumvent a key rule of procedure, La.Code Civ.Proc. art 3601, which requires a showing of irreparable harm for an injunction to issue. The determination of irreparable injury is a question of law for the court, not a matter of private agreement, as allowing such stipulations would permit litigants to expedite their cases at the expense of others. As an additional reason, the court held that the non-competition clause was not triggered because the contract 'expired' by its own terms, whereas the clause only applied upon 'termination,' a distinct event under the contract's language.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle that equitable remedies like injunctions are within the exclusive province of the judiciary and cannot be controlled by private agreement. It establishes that contractual clauses stipulating to irreparable harm or consenting to an injunction are not self-enforcing and do not relieve the moving party of its burden to prove the legal requirements for injunctive relief. This holding serves as a caution to contract drafters that such clauses may be deemed unenforceable attempts to usurp judicial discretion and circumvent public procedural rules. The case also highlights the importance of precise contractual language, distinguishing between 'expiration' and 'termination' as events with different legal consequences.
