Opinion
A8408-05030; CA A36474
Argued and submitted June 6, 1986.
Reversed and remanded January 21, 1987.
Appeal from the Circuit Court, Multnomah County, Charles S. Crookham, Judge.
Roger J. Leo, Portland, argued the cause for appellants. With him on the briefs was Harper, Leo and Hollander, Portland.
Henry Kantor, Portland, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Delo, Kantor Stamm, Portland. Henry Kantor, and Delo, Kantor Stamm resigned as attorneys for respondent on September 19, 1986.
Before Richardson, Presiding Judge, and Newman and Deits, Judges.
PER CURIAM
Reversed and remanded.
Plaintiffs and defendant operate towing services. Plaintiffs brought this action to enjoin defendant from engaging in business in violation of a noncompetition agreement entered into by the parties in May, 1983. Under the agreement, plaintiffs paid $4,000 to defendant for his promise not to compete against them for a period of five years. Defendant moved to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint, because the agreement makes no reference to geographic restrictions. The trial judge granted defendant's motion.
A noncompetition agreement which fails to set out a limitation as to territory is not void as a matter of law. If possible, the noncompetition clause should be interpreted so as to make the extent of its operation reasonable. Lavey/Moore/Brown v. Edwards, 264 Or. 331, 334, 505 P.2d 342 (1973). What is reasonable depends on the facts. See Kelite Prod., Inc. v. Brandt et al, 206 Or. 636, 655, 294 P.2d 320 (1956).
Reversed and remanded.