This case provides two scenarios under which Corporate Express Office tries to enforce non-compete agreements against the respondents. The first scenario is in regards to two employees, Phillips and Farrell, under which they had signed non-compete agreements with Bishop Office Furniture Company (Bishop) in 1986 and 1989, respectively. Under both of these agreements an assignment clause was not included. Later Corporate Express of the South, Inc. (CES) purchased all of Bishop’s stock and shortly after Bishop merged into CES. This mergence stated both of the non-compete agreements between Phillips and Farrell. However soon after, CES then merged into Corporate Express of the East, Inc. (CEE) and eventually changed its name to Corporate Express …show more content…
The decision of this case was that the non-compete agreements were still effective since Sears Termite did not dissipate. However, the respondents argued that it was not fair because Corporate Express had no legal right for the signed non-compete agreements because Corporate Express wasn’t their employer. The court’s decision (Fifth District) was to rule in favor of the employees. They stated that they do not agree with the justification of the Sears Termite case, but these assumptions aren’t relevant to this case. The Fifth District ruled that the non-compete agreements did not mention that the employees are bound to the employers’ successors; therefore the employees were not bound to Corporate Express. Also both non-compete agreements only referred to the employer. For instance, Phillip and Farrell’s agreement with Bishop referred to “Bishop” or “the Employer” and Goff’s referred to his employer as “Ciera Office Products, Inc.” or “the Employer”. Therefore, Corporate Express didn’t have a non-compete agreement with the former employees because in the agreement it did not mention Corporate Express itself or the employers’ successors. This decision was governed by section 542.33, Florida Statues (1985), which states that an employee may refrain to engage in a similar business as long as the employer continues the business. However, this ruling went to the Supreme Court of Florida and they ruled that the First District was right and overruled the Fifth District’s ruling. They stated that Corporate Express still held the legal rights for the non-compete agreements because the purchase of 100% of the stock by one entity does not dissolute the