InvestEase, Inc. is a franchisor that licenses franchisees to provide investment and tax advice to customers under the "InvestEase" service mark. Spivak was granted an InvestEase franchise in Dayton, Ohio. The franchise agreement contained a clause providing that if Spivak were to cease operating her franchise for any reason, she would be prohibited from operating a competing business within a 350-mile radius for the next two years.Spivak's franchise was unprofitable the first two years of operation, and barely profitable the second two years of operation. The franchise was reasonably profitable during its fifth year. At the end of the fifth year, however, InvestEase, Inc. terminated Spivak in accordance with the provisions of the franchise agreement that permitted termination if the franchisee failed to meet certain performance standards for the prior 24 months which Spivak admittedly failed to achieve). InvestEase informed Spivak at that time that it was ceasing all operations in the Midwest, and would focus solely on the Southeast and Southwest regions of the country instead, hoping to capture the retiree market.
Spivak immediately opened her own investment and tax advice service, and sent letters to all of her former InvestEase clientele informing them of her new affiliation and location.
InvestEase has now sued to enforce the covenant to compete. How should the court rule on this issue and why? Discuss the policy considerations raised by this issue thoroughly.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The Answer of InvestEase, Inc. is a franchisor that licenses franchisees to provide investment and tax advice to customers under the "InvestEase" service mark. Spivak was granted an InvestEase franchise in Dayton, Ohio. The franchise agreement contained a clause providing that if Spivak were to cease operating her franchise for any reason, she would be prohibited from operating a competing business within a 350-mile radius for the next two years.Spivak's franchise was unprofitable the first two years of operation, and barely profitable the second two years of operation. The franchise was reasonably profitable during its fifth year. At the end of the fifth year, however, InvestEase, Inc. terminated Spivak in accordance with the provisions of the franchise agreement that permitted termination if the franchisee failed to meet certain performance standards for the prior 24 months which Spivak admittedly failed to achieve). InvestEase informed Spivak at that time that it was ceasing all operations in the Midwest, and would focus solely on the Southeast and Southwest regions of the country instead, hoping to capture the retiree market.
Spivak immediately opened her own investment and tax advice service, and sent letters to all of her former InvestEase clientele informing them of her new affiliation and location.
InvestEase has now sued to enforce the covenant to compete. How should the court rule on this issue and why? Discuss the policy considerations raised by this issue thoroughly.