ContractsProf Blog

Editor: Myanna Dellinger
University of South Dakota School of Law

Wednesday, December 22, 2004

Cases—Interpretation—Contra preferentem bites employer

Delaware_flag An ambiguous employee noncompete clause must be construed against the drafter, according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, applying Delaware law.  The rule isn't surprising, but the outcome is odd.  The former employer found itself in the absurd position where the noncompete would apply if the employee were fired, but not where the employee left to take a job with a competitor.  Since the employee here left voluntarily to join a competitor, the noncompete did not apply.  Commerce Nat'l Ins. Servs. v. Buchler, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 24991 (6th Cir. Dec. 6, 2004).

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/contractsprof_blog/2004/12/casesinterpreta_1.html

Recent Cases | Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bfae553ef00d834c0508953ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Cases—Interpretation—Contra preferentem bites employer:

Comments

Post a comment

If you do not complete your comment within 15 minutes, it will be lost. For longer comments, you may want to draft them in Word or another program and then copy them into this comment box.