Syncom Industries, Inc. v. Wood
New Hampshire Supreme Court
155 N.H. 73, 920 A.2d 1178 (2007)
Facts
Eldon Wood (plaintiff) worked for Syncom Industries, Inc. (Syncom) (defendant) as the vice president of sales. Syncom provided cleaning and maintenance services for movie theaters. Wood was hired in 2001 based on his previous experience in the theater industry. Wood entered into an employment agreement with Syncom that contained a non-solicitation and non-compete agreement. William Hogan (plaintiff) also worked for Syncom and entered into a similar agreement. Hogan began working as an area manager and was promoted to regional manager. The agreement prohibited both employees from soliciting business from any of Syncom’s customers in any territory for three years after leaving Syncom. The agreement also prohibited both employees from working for or being associated with any company or person that might solicit business from any of Syncom’s customers. Wood and Hogan eventually left Syncom and founded a new company directly competing with Syncom. Wood and Hogan obtained the business of several of Syncom’s customers. Syncom sued Wood and Hogan for breach of the employment agreements. The trial court found the agreements to be enforceable and granted judgment to Syncom. Wood and Hogan appealed to the New Hampshire Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Broderick, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 707,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 44,500 briefs, keyed to 983 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.
