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
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.
Legal Distinction on Display: 15th Edition of The Best Lawyers in France™
by Best Lawyers
The industry’s best lawyers and firms working in France are revealed in the newly released, comprehensive the 15th Edition of The Best Lawyers in France™.
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.
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.
Announcing The Best Lawyers in New Zealand™ 2025 Awards
by Best Lawyers
Best Lawyers is announcing the 16th edition of The Best Lawyers in New Zealand for 2025, including individual Best Lawyers and "Lawyer of the Year" awards.
Announcing the 13th Edition of Best Lawyers Rankings in the United Kingdom
by Best Lawyers
Best Lawyers is proud to announce the newest edition of legal rankings in the United Kingdom, marking the 13th consecutive edition of awards in the country.
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.
The Best Lawyers in Singapore™ 2025 Edition
by Best Lawyers
For 2025, Best Lawyers presents the most esteemed awards for lawyers and law firms in Singapore.
Announcing the 16th Edition of the Best Lawyers in Germany Rankings
by Best Lawyers
Best Lawyers announces the 16th edition of The Best Lawyers in Germany™, featuring a unique set of rankings that highlights Germany's top legal talent.
How Much Is a Lawyer Consultation Fee?
by Best Lawyers
Best Lawyers breaks down the key differences between consultation and retainer fees when hiring an attorney, a crucial first step in the legal process.
Celebrating Excellence in Law: 11th Edition of Best Lawyers in Italy™
by Best Lawyers
Best Lawyers announces the 11th edition of The Best Lawyers in Italy™, which features an elite list of awards showcasing Italy's current legal talent.
Presenting the 2024 Best Lawyers Employment and Workers’ Compensation Legal Guide
by Best Lawyers
The 2024 Best Lawyers Employment and Workers' Compensation Legal Guide provides exclusive access to all Best Lawyers awards in related practice areas. Read below and explore the legal guide.
Things to Do Before a Car Accident Happens to You
by Ellie Shaffer
In a car accident, certain things are beyond the point of no return, while some are well within an individual's control. Here's how to stay legally prepared.
Combating Nuclear Verdicts: Empirically Supported Strategies to Deflate the Effects of Anchoring Bias
by Sloan L. Abernathy
Sometimes a verdict can be the difference between amicability and nuclear level developments. But what is anchoring bias and how can strategy combat this?
