Author Question: Assignment. In October 1985, Beatriz Pino signed a five-year employment contract as a radio ... (Read 168 times)

crazycityslicker · **on:** Jun 24, 2018

Assignment. In October 1985, Beatriz Pino signed a five-year employment contract as a radio announcer and disc jockey with two radio stations. The contract provided that Pino would not engage directly or indirectly in the broadcasting business in Dade or Broward Counties, Florida, for a period of twelve (12) months after the termination of her employment by the stations. The contract also provided that it was assignable. In December 1986, the stations sold their assets to Spanish Broadcasting System of Florida, Inc (SBS), and as part of the sale, Pino's contract was assigned to SBS. In October 1989, Pino contracted with Viva, a broadcasting competitor of SBS, to begin working for Viva when her SBS contract terminated in March 1990. SBS asked a Florida state court to grant a temporary injunction to enforce the agreement not to compete. Pino contended that the assignment of the clause containing the covenant not to complete was invalid. Although a Florida statute provided that covenants not to compete could be enforced, it said nothing about such covenants being assignable. Was the covenant not to compete assignable?

Question 2

An agent is trying to sell a house for 100,000 for her principal. The principal will sell the house for as little as 80,000, but wants to get as much as possible. The agent tells her cousin to offer 81,000 . The agent's actions are:
a. a legitimate effort to get the deal done that will benefit everyone involved b. a violation of the duty of accounting
c. a violation of the duty of notification
d. unethical, but it does not violate legal duties e. none of the other choices

Bison · **Reply #1 on:** Jun 24, 2018

Answer to Question 1

Assignment
The state trial court ruled in favor of SBS, and Pino appealed. A state intermediate appellate court affirmed the trial court's ruling. The appellate court held that because the contract contained a provision permitting its assignment, the covenant not to compete was assignable. The court explained that its holding conformed with the policy of preserving the sanctity of contract and providing uniformity and certainty in commercial transactions.

Answer to Question 2

e