Stonhard, Inc. v. Carolina Flooring Specialists, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding it would violate public policy to allow a court to insert an entirely new geographical term when none existed
• “we hold that the covenant [not to compete], despite any reformation, is void and unenforceable as a matter of public policy”
• on certification from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina
• “Even if the agreement could be reformed in this manner under New Jersey law, the agreement would be unenforceable in South Carolina because the very act of adding a term not negotiated and agreed upon by the parties violates public policy.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).