Washington Law Review




Plaintiff-employer sought to prevent defendant-employee from competing with him in the horseshoeing business within a proscribed area and time as set forth in an employment agreement between them. The trial court found the area of restriction to be excessive and thus unreasonable and refused to modify the covenant not to compete. It held that the unreasonable restriction was not severable from the remainder of the covenant and that the whole covenant was thus unenforceable. Plaintiff appealed, claiming error in the findings of unreasonableness and indivisibility and in the refusal to modify or enforce the covenant. The Washington Supreme Court upheld the finding of unreasonableness but rejected the divisibility test as a criterion for judicial enforcement. The case was remanded with instructions to enforce time and area restrictions that would be reasonable under the circumstances. Wood v. May, 73 Wn. 2d 307, 438 P.2d 587 (1968).

First Page