Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 141 views

    016 Ollendorf V Abrahamson

    Uploaded by

    keith105
    This case involves a contract between Ollendorf and Abrahamson where Abrahamson agreed to work exclusively for Ollendorf for two years and not engage in any competitive business. Abrahamson later left Ollendorf's employment and became a manager for a competing company. Ollendorf sued for an injunction, which was granted, though Ollendorf could not prove pecuniary damages. The court held that an injunction was still proper despite the lack of proven damages, as Abrahamson's ongoing breach of contract constituted an irreparable injury. The court noted that any continuing breach of a valid negative covenant is irreparable, and injury from unfair competition is difficult to precisely measure.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    016 Ollendorf V Abrahamson

    Uploaded by

    keith105
    141 views2 pages
    This case involves a contract between Ollendorf and Abrahamson where Abrahamson agreed to work exclusively for Ollendorf for two years and not engage in any competitive business. Abrahamson later left Ollendorf's employment and became a manager for a competing company. Ollendorf sued for an injunction, which was granted, though Ollendorf could not prove pecuniary damages. The court held that an injunction was still proper despite the lack of proven damages, as Abrahamson's ongoing breach of contract constituted an irreparable injury. The court noted that any continuing breach of a valid negative covenant is irreparable, and injury from unfair competition is difficult to precisely measure.

    Original Description:

    asd

    Original Title

    016 Ollendorf v Abrahamson

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a contract between Ollendorf and Abrahamson where Abrahamson agreed to work exclusively for Ollendorf for two years and not engage in any competitive business. Abrahamson later left Ollendorf's employment and became a manager for a competing company. Ollendorf sued for an injunction, which was granted, though Ollendorf could not prove pecuniary damages. The court held that an injunction was still proper despite the lack of proven damages, as Abrahamson's ongoing breach of contract constituted an irreparable injury. The court noted that any continuing breach of a valid negative covenant is irreparable, and injury from unfair competition is difficult to precisely measure.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    141 views2 pages

    016 Ollendorf V Abrahamson

    Uploaded by

    keith105
    This case involves a contract between Ollendorf and Abrahamson where Abrahamson agreed to work exclusively for Ollendorf for two years and not engage in any competitive business. Abrahamson later left Ollendorf's employment and became a manager for a competing company. Ollendorf sued for an injunction, which was granted, though Ollendorf could not prove pecuniary damages. The court held that an injunction was still proper despite the lack of proven damages, as Abrahamson's ongoing breach of contract constituted an irreparable injury. The court noted that any continuing breach of a valid negative covenant is irreparable, and injury from unfair competition is difficult to precisely measure.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    016 Ollendorf v Abrahamson

    GR 13228
    TOPIC:
    PONENTE:

    AUTHOR: Keith Meridores


    NOTES:

    FACTS:

    Herein plaintiff Ollendorf and defendant Abrahamson made and entered into Contract o
    Agreement. The first part hereby agrees to employ the defendant and the party of th
    second obliges himself to work for the plaintiff within the period of two years. Defendan
    obligates and binds himself to devote his entire time, attention, energies and industry o
    the promotion of the furtherance of the business and interest of the party. Failure on th
    said duty shall entitle the plaintiff to discharge and dismiss the defendant. The secon
    part of the contract further binds the party that he will not enter whether directly o
    indirectly to engage in a similar or competitive business. Under the term of thi
    agreement, the plaintiff left the employment due to illness and went to U.S. After hi
    departure, the defendant returns to Manila as the Manager of the Philippine Underwea
    Company. Defendant admits that both firms turn out the same class of goods and thos
    they are exported to the same market. However, he alleged that the said contract wit
    the plaintiff was void for it violates the right for free trade. An injunction was applied fo
    by the plaintiff and was granted. Defendant alleges, among other things that plaintiff
    failed to substantiate his allegation that he suffered pecuniary damage.

    ISSUE(S): Whether or not an injunction is proper despite there being no proof of pecuniar

    damage?
    HELD: Yes
    RATIO:

    The admitted fact that plaintiff has failed to establish proof of pecuniary damage b
    reason of the breach of the contract by defendant by the acts committed prior to th
    issuance of the preliminary injunction is, of course, a bar or nay money judgment fo
    damages for the breach of contract, but will not justify us in permitting defendant t
    continue to break his contract over plaintiffs objection. The injury is a continuous one
    The fact that the court may not be able to give damages for that part of the breach of th
    contract which had already taken place when its aid was invoked is no reason why i
    should countenance a continuance of such disregard of plaintiffs rights.

    With respect to the contention that an injunction may only be granted to preven
    irreparable injury, the answer is that any continuing breach of a valid negative covenan
    is irreparable by the ordinary process of courts of law.

    In Gilchirst v Cuddy: irreparable injury is not meant such injury as is beyond th


    possibility of repair, or beyond possible compensation in damages, nor necessarily grea
    injury or great damage, but that species of injury, whether great or small, that ought no
    be submitted to on the one hand or inflicted on the other, and, because it is so large o
    the one hand, or so small on the other, is of such constant and frequent recurrence tha
    no fair or reasonable redress can be had therefor in a court of law.

    The injury done the business of a merchant by illegal or unfair competition is exceedingl
    difficult to measure. A diminution of the volume of a business may be due to so man
    different causes that it is so often impossible to demonstrate that it has in fact bee
    caused by the illegal competition of the defendant.

    You might also like