Section 67 Remedies in Enforcement

• Library: Emp-Emp Law 2000

The remedies for a violation of a noncompetition agreement may be damages, an injunction, or both. The vast majority of litigation involving noncompetition agreements, however, principally involves actions for injunctive relief. There are two significant reasons. First, actual damages caused by the violation of a covenant not to compete are usually difficult, and sometimes impossible, to prove. Second, the employer typically prefers to enforce the employee’s compliance with the agreement rather than to recover monetary damages. In the following cases, the courts either affirmed the entry of an injunction to enforce a noncompetition agreement or ruled that enforcement by injunction should have been granted:

• National Starch and Chem. Corp. v. Newman, 577 S.W.2d 99 (Mo. App. W.D. 1978)

• Chemical Fireproofing Corp. v. Bronska, 542 S.W.2d 74 (Mo. App. E.D. 1976)

• Long v. Huffman, 557 S.W.2d 911 (Mo. App. W.D. 1977)

• R. E. Harrington, Inc. v. Frick, 428 S.W.2d 945 (Mo. App. E.D. 1968)

• Reed, Roberts Assocs., Inc. v. Bailenson, 537 S.W.2d 238 (Mo. App. E.D. 1976).

• House of Tools and Eng’g, Inc. v. Price, 504 S.W.2d 157 (Mo. App. E.D. 1973).

• Mills v. Murray, 472 S.W.2d 6 (Mo. App. W.D. 1971).

Because actions seeking injunctive relief are actions in equity, the trial courts have broad discretion in determining the reasonableness of a noncompetition agreement. The equitable nature of the action is the source of the court’s power to fashion its own remedy by modifying the agreement and enforcing it only to the extent the court finds reasonable.

Missouri caselaw has consistently recognized that the injunction remedy is uniquely appropriate in actions brought for violations of noncompetition agreements. The breach of a covenant not to compete by its very nature results in irreparable injury to the employer for which relief is not available by an action at law for damages. Thompson v. Allain, 377 S.W.2d 465 (Mo. App. W.D. 1964); Long v. Huffman, 557 S.W.2d 911. See also American Pamcor, Inc. v. Klote, 438 S.W.2d 287, 291 (Mo. App. E.D. 1969). In Thompson v. Allain, the court held that an injunction remedy is especially proper in an action to enforce a noncompetition agreement and reasoned: “[T]he object of the contract can be attained only by the parties conforming expressly and exactly to its terms.” Id. at 465.

Similarly, the court in Long v. Huffman, 557 S.W.2d at 914, stated: “Thus, the injunctive remedy is peculiarly appropriate both because of...