A business dispute in Michigan may provide insight into the consideration required to support a noncompete contract restricting future employment. Innovation Ventures, LLC v. Liquid Manufacturing, LLC, No. 150591, Michigan Supreme Court (July 24, 2016).
Contracts containing restrictive covenants prohibiting certain types of competition are commonplace in employment and business contracts. Because these agreements are contracts, Michigan courts have not historically looked into the sufficiency of consideration, since the longstanding Michigan rule is that sufficiency of consideration is not a matter for legal review. The Michigan Supreme Court, in a 2002 case, has commented that a “cent or a pepper corn, in legal estimation, would constitute a valuable consideration.” Essentially, this means that courts refrain from evaluating the quality of the deal, i.e., whether it was good or bad for one party.
This underpinning has been the basis for court holdings stating that in Michigan continued at-will employment is sufficient consideration to support noncompete restrictive covenants. Other states have deviated from this rule. Notably, an important Illinois decision held that employment alone is insufficient consideration to support a restrictive covenant agreement unless the employment continues for two years or more, even if the agreement is signed when the employee is hired. Fifield v. Premier Dealer Services, Inc., 2013 IL App (1st) 120327.
Factual Background
In the recent Michigan case, Innovations Ventures, LLC v. Liquid Manufacturing, LLC, the parties engaged in business under a verbal agreement. Later the parties decided to memorialize their relationship with a written contract. The agreement provided for continued business relations plus a new confidentiality provision and a new noncompete provision. Within days, Innovations Ventures cancelled the contract and, after the 14-day notice period, the business relationship ended. Thereafter, Liquid Manufacturing began competing and Innovations Venture brought suit.
Many issues were raised in litigation, however, this article will focus only on those portions dealing with required consideration for the noncompete agreement. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants on the theory that there was insufficient consideration. The court of appeals upheld the lower court’s decision, but focused itself upon failure of consideration. The court of appeals wrote, “discontinuation of the business/employment relationship within two weeks of the signing of agreements constituted a failure of consideration.”
Michigan Supreme Court’s Holding
The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the lower courts’ decisions, ruling that sufficient consideration existed and there was no failure of consideration. Its reasoning was straight to the point on both fronts. Sufficient consideration existed because one side agreed to continued business and, in exchange, the other agreed to a noncompete restriction. Plainly, the Michigan Supreme Court really means that a cent or a peppercorn constitutes consideration—and so does the mere assent to engage in business with another. The failure of consideration argument was likewise quickly swatted aside. The court noted that failure of consideration generally arises when the side that committed the first material breach tries to enforce the agreement against the other party. Therefore, in the Innovation Ventures situation, there was no first material breach because the contract itself stated that a party could terminate the contract at any time without cause. In the court’s eye the “Agreement[s] were not void for a failure of consideration because the parties exercised their rights as plainly contemplated by the contract.”
Key Takeaways
A footnote in the decision specifically states that the decision was limited to contracts between sophisticated businesses. The court wrote, “We decline to address . . . whether failure of consideration applies to at-will employees who sign a noncompete agreement after at-will employment has started.” Nevertheless, the theory and argument could have application to the employment situation and it may prove to be difficult to factually distinguish employment contracts from the case’s scope. Specifically, Innovation Ventures could be argued to stand for the proposition that when employment may be terminated at will, there is no failure of consideration when the employer exercises that contractual right—no matter how soon the termination occurs after the parties enter into the contract.
For more information, follow the source link below.
Insight
Restrictive Covenants in Michigan: A Cent, a Peppercorn, or Continued At-Will Employment
The Michigan Supreme Court, in a 2002 case, has commented that a “cent or a pepper corn, in legal estimation, would constitute a valuable consideration.” Essentially, this means that courts refrain from evaluating the quality of the deal, i.e., whether it was good or bad for one party.
Related Articles
Staunch Competition
by Andrea E. Nieto, Catherine H. Molloy and Jennifer W. Corinis
On the other side of the pandemic, after record numbers of employee resignation, protecting trade secrets is both challenging and being challenged.
Midwest In the Law
by Gregory Sirico
We examine five court cases that are ongoing in Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, Minnesota and Indiana.
The Best Lawyers in the Midwest
by Best Lawyers
Our 2022 Best Lawyers in the Midwest Digital publication features top-ranked legal talent, including Best Lawyers and Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America throughout six Midwest states.
A Legal Guide for Businesses During COVID-19
by Roy D. Oppenheim
Oppenheim Law creates a useful guide for problems small to medium-sized businesses may face during this time of uncertainty.
The Quest for Smarter, Better RFPs
by Anne Forkner
A law firm that cannot meet deadlines, stay within page limits, and answer all parts of a question in an RFP is providing important information regarding the firm’s ability to meet client requirements.
Q&A with Franklin Hoet-Linares of Venezuela’s Hoet Pelaez Castillo & Duque
by Best Lawyers
An interview with Franklin Hoet-Linares of Venezuela’s Hoet Pelaez Castillo & Duque.
The Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016: A New Federal Civil Cause of Action for Trade Secret Theft
by Randal J. Brotherhood
"It represents one of the most significant events in trade secret reform in years. The DTSA amends the Economic Espionage Act, which previously limited access to federal courts for trade secret theft to criminal prosecution."
Trending Articles
The 2024 Best Lawyers in Spain™
by Best Lawyers
Best Lawyers is honored to announce the 16th edition of The Best Lawyers in Spain™ and the third edition of Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in Spain™ for 2024.
Presenting The Best Lawyers in Australia™ 2025
by Best Lawyers
Best Lawyers is proud to present The Best Lawyers in Australia for 2025, marking the 17th consecutive year of Best Lawyers awards in Australia.
Best Lawyers Expands Chilean 2024 Awards
by Best Lawyers
Best Lawyers is pleased to announce the 14th edition of The Best Lawyers in Chile™ and the inaugural edition of Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in Chile™, honoring the top lawyers and firms conferred on by their Chilean peers.
Best Lawyers Expands 2024 Brazilian Awards
by Best Lawyers
Best Lawyers is honored to announce the 14th edition of The Best Lawyers in Brazil™ and the first edition of Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in Brazil™.
Announcing The Best Lawyers in South Africa™ 2024
by Best Lawyers
Best Lawyers is excited to announce the landmark 15th edition of The Best Lawyers in South Africa™ for 2024, including the exclusive "Law Firm of the Year" awards.
The Best Lawyers in Mexico Celebrates a Milestone Year
by Best Lawyers
Best Lawyers is excited to announce the 15th edition of The Best Lawyers in Mexico™ and the second edition of Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in Mexico™ for 2024.
How Palworld Is Testing the Limits of Nintendo’s Legal Power
by Gregory Sirico
Many are calling the new game Palworld “Pokémon GO with guns,” noting the games striking similarities. Experts speculate how Nintendo could take legal action.
The Best Lawyers in Portugal™ 2024
by Best Lawyers
The 2024 awards for Portugal include the 14th edition of The Best Lawyers in Portugal™ and 2nd edition of Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in Portugal™.
The Best Lawyers in Peru™ 2024
by Best Lawyers
Best Lawyers is excited to announce the landmark 10th edition of The Best Lawyers in Peru, the prestigious award recognizing the country's lop legal talent.
How To Find A Pro Bono Lawyer
by Best Lawyers
Best Lawyers dives into the vital role pro bono lawyers play in ensuring access to justice for all and the transformative impact they have on communities.
Presenting the 2024 Best Lawyers Family Law Legal Guide
by Best Lawyers
The 2024 Best Lawyers Family Law Legal Guide is now live and includes recognitions for all Best Lawyers family law awards. Read below and explore the legal guide.
The Best Lawyers in Colombia™ 2024
by Best Lawyers
Best Lawyers is honored to announce the 14th edition of The Best Lawyers in Colombia™ for 2024, which honors Colombia's most esteemed lawyers and law firms.
Announcing the 2024 Best Lawyers in Puerto Rico™
by Best Lawyers
Best Lawyers is proud to announce the 11th edition of The Best Lawyers in Puerto Rico™, honoring the top lawyers and firms across the country for 2024.
Announcing The Best Lawyers in Japan™ 2025
by Best Lawyers
For a milestone 15th edition, Best Lawyers is proud to announce The Best Lawyers in Japan.
