Vermont Electric Supply Company, Inc. v. Andrus

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that employee was not placed in double bind of being fired and of being subject to restrictive covenant because he voluntarily left his employer for very purpose of going into business competitively in same special field
• employee sent to school, made privy to cost factors in pricing and as a salesman developed a close relationship with employer’s customers
• restrictive covenants will not be enforced if they are “contrary to public policy, unnecessary for protection of the employer, or unnecessarily restrictive of the rights of the employee”
• approving five year restriction in non-competition agreement

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).