Question

Three salesmen worked for Sentient Jet, a small luxury airline charter service. They signed a noncompete agreement, promising not to go to work for a competing employer within a year after working for Sentient and not to take any confidential information with them when they left the firm. When there was a change in the CEO of their firm and talk of the company possibly being bought out, the employees left the firm and went to work for Apollo Jets, a competitor, and allegedly took proprietary information with them that allowed them to solicit former Sentient clients. The plaintiff sought damages and an injunction to ban the employees from working for a competitor for a year. Defendants argued that material changes in circumstances should have made the non compete agreement enforceable. How do you think the jury decided in this case

Answer 1

Answer:

For this situation, the choices ought to be against the three workers. This is principally because of the way that the inability to execute the understanding will bring about the hopeless damage which can be looked by the previous managers. The odds of a material change any inconclusive time later on doesn't bring about any sort of material change.  

Simultaneously, if there is an adjustment in the administration of the association, it doesn't bring about any sort of material change which can be used by somebody in that reality that the contract not to contend was revoked.

Answer 2

Answer:

The jury will most likely rule in favour of the Plaintiff Sentient Jet

Explanation:

A non compete is a agreement between an employer and an employee. The employee agrees not to work for a competitor in a similar profession for a given period. Proprietary information should not be taken from the company to another. Customers of the former employer should also not be solicited.

In this scenario the three employees have clearly violated the non compete they signed by working for Apollo Jets, a competitor, and allegedly took proprietary information with them that allowed them to solicit former Sentient clients.

Based on the facts of the case the jury will rule in favour of the plaintiff.