Explore BrainMass

Explore BrainMass

    Court Ruling - Case Study

    This content was COPIED from BrainMass.com - View the original, and get the already-completed solution here!

    Walt Shoddy, the owner of Shoddy Shoe Repair, was contemplating retirement. He therefore contracted to sell the business to Pauline Parker. Shoddy Shoe Repair was located in Hoosierburg, Indiana, which has a population of 5,233. Besides containing a provision entitling Parker to use the Shoddy Shoe Repair name for the business, the parties' contract included a clause that prohibited Shoddy from opening up a competing shoe repair shop in Hoosierburg for a period of one year from the date of the parties' contract. Two months after the date of the contract (and one and one-half months after the sale of the business to Parker had been completed), Shoddy grew tired of retirement. As shoe repair had been his life's work, he opened up a shoe repair shop in Hoosierburg. Parker has sued him in an effort to obtain an injunction against his operation of the competing business, alleging a violation of the parties' contract. How is the court likely to rule? Explain your reasoning.

    © BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com June 4, 2020, 3:16 am ad1c9bdddf
    https://brainmass.com/business/business-law/court-ruling-case-study-506197

    Solution Preview

    Overview of the facts:
    Walt owns Shoddy's Repair and was contemplating retirement. He decided to sell his shoe repair shop to Pauline. This is a small town with 5,233 residents. There was a clause that prohibited Walt from opening a competing business in the same town for one year. Two months later, he decided to open a shoe repair ...

    Solution Summary

    This solution explains the case of Walt Shoddy, the owner of Shoddy Shoe Repair. All relevant facts and issues are discussed. A thorough explanation of how the court will rule is provided.

    $2.19

    ADVERTISEMENT