Hopper v. All Pet Animal Clinic

1993 Wyoming Supreme Court

• All Pet Animal Clinic sued for injunction and damages against vet (Hopper) for violating covenant not to compete.
• Court considers two competing goals: freedom to contract vs. freedom to work.
• Court holds that neither policy is dominant, but rather that both are valid and modifies agreement to respect both policies.
• Competing Interests ? Interests of employer
? Needs to be valid business reason apart from wanting to cut off competition.
? Employer has property interest in its customers.
? Hopper was new vet when employed by clinic, thus firm should be rewarded for their investment in person without risking that their investment will be jeopardized by immediate competition.

? Interests of employee: Could enforce covenant without unfairly limiting employee’s choices, because there are a great number of animal practices (i.e., large animal practice) in Wyoming that wouldn’t violate agreement.
? Interests of public
? Free competition, keeps costs down

• Court found it was not reasonable to restrict competition for three years, thus reduced duration to one year.
• One year had already lapsed, however, thus defendant ‘won’.
• Court finds one year to be reasonable balance of three interests. Empirical judgment.
• Implied reasoning: if customers continue to take their small animals to vet for one year after vet leaves, they are unlikely to change once the agreement expires.

Author: international