Bertholet v. Stefanko
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
| Bertholet v. Stefanko | |
| Court | Indiana Court of Appeals |
|---|---|
| Citation | 690 N.E.2d 361 |
| Date decided | January 15, 1998 |
Facts
- Ed Stefanko = defendant = "Stefanko" = employee = bondsman
- Ed Bertholet & Associates, Inc. = plaintiff = "Bertholet" = employer
- Stefanko agreed to work as a bail bondsman for Bertholet.
- The employment contract contained a non-compete clause.
- Moreover, the contract contained a liquidated damages provision.
- Stefanko worked for Bertholet for 3 years & quit.
Procedural History
Bertholet sued Stefanko for working for a competitor of Bertholet. Bertholet sought a judiciail injunction against Stefanko working for a competitor.
Bertholet lost in the trial court.Issues
Are trial courts bound by contract clauses that require issuance of an injunction?
Can trial courts throw contract clauses out the window?Arguments
Bertholet argued that Stefanko could have stolen its clients.
Holding
No. Trial courts aren't bound by contract clauses that require issuance of an injunction.
Holding was in favor of Stefanko.Judgment
Affirmed.
Reasons
Bertholet didn't suffer irreparable harm.
Resources
