who is right in this situation?

Question

My aunt owned a profitable beauty salon in Central Massachusetts that a coworker agreed to purchase. As part of the purchase contract my aunt agreed not to compete in a personal service business anywhere in Massachusetts for 2 years. Eighteen months later, my aunt opened a beauty salon in Boston. When the coworker found out she sued my aunt claiming my aunt violated her covenant not to compete. My aunt defended by claiming that the agreement should not be enforced because it violates public policy. Who is correct here?

Answer 1

The coworker. Your aunt signed a legal document. She should not try to hide behind a theory now.

Answer 2

> My aunt defended by claiming that the agreement should not be enforced because it violates public policy. Who is correct here?

NO, public policy would say that 2 years non compete is fine.

The basic principals are:

- Is your aunt being denied a chance to make a living according to her training and skills.

- Is her new shop actually competing with the old shop?

I used to live in Boston, so I would say, depending where in Central MA, likely not. But if she is actively marketing to her old customers, then likely she is in violation.

Why not ask the attorney that advised you on the original non-compete?

Answer 3

Is your question about law or ethics? I'm not sure what the Mass. laws are on non-compete clauses. If they are against public policy, then your aunt may be legally protected. However, she agreed in contract not to compete for 2 years, so ethically, I think she is wrong.

Answer 4

Your aunt was rightly sued because she reneged on the deal I hope the coworker wins (won) the suit

Answer 5

What is the specifc public policy that invalidates an apparent legal contract. If she is being sued, I assume that she has a lawyer.

Answer 6

i think your aunt violated the no compete clause