recognizing that, “[i]f a noncompetition clause is executed at the inception of the employment [relationship], the consideration to support the covenant may be the award of the position itself”; and employee's retention “by a separate and distinct entity” after ownership-change qualified as consideration
Summary of this case from Chromalox, Inc. v. Crombie1277 WDA 2017
05-09-2018
FOX, F. v. HANCHEY, E.
Affirmed.
recognizing that, “[i]f a noncompetition clause is executed at the inception of the employment [relationship], the consideration to support the covenant may be the award of the position itself”; and employee's retention “by a separate and distinct entity” after ownership-change qualified as consideration
Summary of this case from Chromalox, Inc. v. CrombieFull title:FOX, F. v. HANCHEY, E.
Court:Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
Date published: May 9, 2018
While continued-employment generally will not suffice, Spirax's newly-acquired authority arguably made Mr.…