Solari Industries v. Malady
New Jersey Supreme Court
264 A.2d 53 (1970)

- Written by Craig Scheer, JD
Facts
In March 1969, Joseph Malady (plaintiff) entered an employment contract with Solari Industries, Inc. (Solari) (defendant), a New Jersey corporation. The contract, which stated it was governed by New York law, prohibited Malady from competing with Solari for one year following the termination of his employment for any reason, with no geographic limitation on this restraint. Several months later, after his relationship with his supervisor deteriorated, Malady agreed to the termination of his employment. In so doing, he expressly acknowledged the noncompetition provision of his employment contract and promised to adhere to it. Malady subsequently obtained the rights from another company to distribute products in the United States and Canada that competed with Solari’s products. He also contacted existing and prospective customers of Solari after being advised by his counsel that the noncompetition provision was unreasonable and void because it was not limited to a particular geographic area. Solari sued Malady, seeking injunctive relief to prevent him from violating the noncompetition provision. Solari maintained that because the employment contract was signed in New York and stated it was governed by New York law, New York law, rather than New Jersey law, was controlling. The trial court declined to issue an injunction, holding that even if the noncompetition provision was enforceable in New York, New Jersey public policy did not permit enforcement of a noncompetition provision, like the one in Malady’s employment contract, that contained no geographic limitation. The trial court said that such a provision was unreasonable and void per se. Solari appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Jacobs, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.