ÿWPCº) …# VUNa %¯ 0˜µU<M w@‰ 4É Ý ì 0Üô 0DÐ 1m 0c 0Jä 0T. 0^‚ 0hà 0rH 0|º 0†6 0¼ 1uL 0dÁU>%B)cDCŒ AMÏU* BF D3cŽ–=$ 0@aë¡RŒv~ÞvÓ\ 0w/# 0Ц# 0 0$ 0´Ð$ 0Ç„% 0ÛK& 0ï&' AO(Æd( 0D*) D/n) B)˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(püƒ$¡¡Ò°ÒÒ„°ÒÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑ-šBu Z‹$Arrus BT Roman #a$U%U&U'î()Ó€*U+Ó€,Ó€©U!Ú3|x7(Œ(3`d$¤¤Ý ƒüƒ!ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóótuvwxyz#,37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(;s˜$´´Ô2,ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d%%%%7Border 1dd€-&Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial d))))'ÿÿdxd „Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÝ  ÝÔ€(ÔÔ€(ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€(XÔÌÌò òOctoberÏ16,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€(ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó 3Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€Ô€ÔThe€complaint€also€alleges€tortious€interference€with€contract,€tortiousÏinterference€with€business€relationships€and€prays€for€compensatory,€treble,€andÏpunitive€damages.€€The€claims€for€monetary€damages€against€Depew€wereÏvoluntarily€nonsuited€and€dismissed€without€prejudice.Ì("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò áÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€Ô€ÔThe€technical€record€does€not€have€the€pleadings€or€the€judgment€fromÏthis€action,€but€it€appears€that€the€general€sessions€court€awarded€the€bonus€toÏDepew€and€the€decision€was€appealed€by€Amarr.Ì HÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€Ô€ÔA€covenant€not€to€compete€which€contains€an€unreasonable€restrictionÏmay€be€judicially€modified€to€make€the€restrictions€reasonable.€€òòò òCentralÏAdjustment€Bureau,€Inc.€v.€Ingramó óóó,€678€S.W.2d€28€(Tenn.€1984).€€The€fact€thatÏthe€trial€court€modified€the€covenant€is€not€an€issue€in€this€case.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Geneva ÒÒ  BA Op Geneva Ò(OÞ{$µµà0  àÔ2,ÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0` (#(#à(b²D$¶¶à0  àà0` (#(#àÔ2,ÔÚ  ÚÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#à(xÓñ$··à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àÔ2,Ô(Ú  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0¸ (#¸ (#à(ŒÆ‚$¸¸à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àÔ2,Ô(Ú  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0h(#(#à(Ÿù…$¹¹à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àÔ2,Ô(Ú  ÚÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0Àh(#h(#à(³¶4$ººà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àÔ2,ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0À(#À(#à(Ǫ»$»»à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àà0À(#À(#àÔ2,ÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0p(#(#à€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€$ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÝ  ÝÑ7€%XXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÙ€€ÙßL€'+&;+'h|` à. `€€Lßà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OFÏAPPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€ATÏKNOXVILLE€Ìà àà à€€Ï________________________________________________ÌÌò òAMARR€COMPANY,€INC.,€ó óÌÌà àPlaintiff„Appellee,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àSullivanÏChancery€No.€26708ÌVs.à àà àà àà àà àà àà àC.A.€No.Ï03A01„9511„CH„00412ÌÌò òMARK€DEPEW,€ó óÌÌà àDefendant„Appellant.Ì___________________________________________________________________________ÌÌà@ àFROM€THE€CHANCERYÏCOURT€FOR€SULLIVAN€COUNTYÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€JOHNÏS.€MCLELLAN,€III,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àJ.€Eddie€Lauderback€ofÏJohnson€CityÌà@ àFor€Plaintiff„AppelleeÌÌà@ àDavid€S.€Bunn€of€BristolÌà@ àFor€Defendant„AppellantÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àò òòòREVERSED€IN€PART,€AFFIRMED€IN€PARTÌÌó óóóà@ àOpinion€filed:ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€W.S.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€JUDGEÌÌSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEó óÌÌÌÑ  ÑÓÓ›à àThis€case€involves€the€enforcement€of€a€noncompetition€clause€in€anÏemployment€contract€and€a€related€contract€claim€for€a€bonus.€€Defendant,ÏMark€Depew,€appeals€from€the€trial€courtððs€judgment€in€favor€of€plaintiff,€AmarrÏCompany,€Inc.€€The€trial€court€entered€a€permanent€injunction€in€favor€ofÏAmarr€that€enforced€and€modified€the€covenant€not€to€compete,€and€also€ruledÏthat€Depew€was€not€entitled€to€his€bonus.Ìà àIn€its€complaint,€Amarr€avers€that€it€is€a€manufacturer€and€wholesaleÏdealer€of€garage€doors,€and€that€Depew€was€one€of€its€employees€who€was€actingÍunder€an€employment€agreement€that€contained€a€covenant€not€to€compete.€ÏAmarr€avers€that€Depew€was€provided€with€confidential,€proprietaryÏinformation€such€as€trade€secrets,€customer€lists,€customer€credit€information,Ïpricing€information,€selling€techniques,€managing€techniques,€future€businessÏplans,€and€future€promotional€plans€and€opportunities.€€Amarr€alleges€thatÏDepew€actively€breached€the€employment€agreement€by€engaging€in€directÏcompetition€with€them€and€contacting€their€customers.× ƒ, ××  ×€€Amarr€sought€aÏtemporary€and€a€permanent€injunction€against€Depew€to€enforce€the€covenantÏnot€to€compete.€€Ìà àIn€his€answer,€Depew€admits€that€he€was€employed€by€Amarr€and€that€heÏacted€under€an€employment€agreement.€€Depew€also€admits€that€he€now€is€anÏemployee€of€R€&€M€Door€Systems,€L.L.C.€€However,€he€denies€that€he€breachedÏthe€employment€agreement€but€alleges€that€the€restrictive€covenant€not€toÏcompete€contained€in€the€agreement€is€unenforceable€because€it€is€unreasonableÏand€contrary€to€public€policy.€€Depew€also€asserts€that€he€was€only€an€ordinaryÏsalesman€and€that€his€service€for€Amarr€was€not€unique€or€original€and€did€notÏinvolve€any€acquisition€of€special€business€or€trade€secrets.Ìà àIn€a€separate€action,€Depew€filed€suit€against€Amarr€claiming€that€he€wasÏentitled€to€a€bonus€pursuant€to€his€employment€contract.€€Depewððs€contractÏaction€was€tried€in€the€General€Sessions€Court€at€Bristol,€Tennessee€and€wasÏappealed€to€the€Bristol€Law€Court.× ƒ. ××  ×€€By€agreement€of€the€parties,€DepewððsÏcontract€claim€was€transferred€to€chancery€court€and€consolidated€with€thisÏaction.€€A€non„jury€trial€was€held€on€October€9,€1995.€€The€pertinent€factsÏdeveloped€from€the€hearing€are€as€follows.€€€€€Ìà àAmarr€hired€Depew,€as€an€at„will€employee,€to€work€as€an€AssistantÏManager€at€the€Tri„Cities€Door€Center€in€April€of€1993.€€At€that€time,€DepewÏwas€required€to€sign€an€employment€agreement.€€The€agreement€provided,€òòinterÏaliaóó,€that€upon€Depewððs€separation€from€Amarr€for€any€reason,€a€non„competeÏprovision€would€go€into€effect.€€The€covenant€not€to€compete€provided:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àThe€Employee€covenants€and€agrees€that€for€a€periodÏof€two€years€after€the€termination€of€his€employmentÏwith€the€Employer€(regardless€of€whether€hisÏtermination€is€voluntary€or€involuntary),€and€withinÏeither€the€Territory€or€two€hundred€and€fifty€miles€ofÏany€of€the€facilities€of€Employer€.€.€.€the€Employee€willÏnot,€as€principal,€agent,€trustee,€or€through€the€agencyÏof€any€corporation,€partnership,€association,€orÏagency,€engage,€directly€or€indirectly,€in€any€of€theÏbusinesses€engaged€in€by€the€Employer€at€orÍimmediately€prior€to€the€date€hereof.€€During€theÏtwo„year€period,€Employee€shall€not€directly€orÏindirectly,€be€the€owner€of€more€than€5%€of€theÏoutstanding€capital€stock€of€any€corporation;€or€anÏofficer,€director,€or€employee€of€any€corporation;€or€aÏmember€or€employee€of€any€partnership;€or€an€ownerÏor€an€employee€of€any€other€business,€which€conductsÏbusiness€of€a€like€or€similar€nature€to€the€business€ofÏEmployer€within€geographic€areas€set€forth€above.€ÏThe€Employee€acknowledges€that€because€his€positionÏwill€provide€him€with€access€to€all€important€businessÏinformation€of€the€Employer,€some€of€which€will€be€ofÏuniversal€application,€including€customer€lists,€tradeÏsecrets€and€pricing€information,€the€Employer€isÏentitled€to€the€protection€provided€in€this€paragraphÏ8€regardless€of€whether€the€Employee€actually€worksÏin€each€of€(or€every€part€of€any€of)€the€specifiedÏrestricted€œareas.›œÌ›ÌÓÓ€€€à àOn€October€1,€1993,€Depew€was€promoted€to€manager€of€the€Tri„CitiesÏDoor€Center.€€As€manager,€Depew€was€primarily€responsible€for€making€salesÏcalls.€€He€attended€a€training€course€that€dealt€with€general€sales,€informationÏabout€the€product,€general€office€skills,€and€computer€instruction.€€Depew€hadÏaccess€to€customer€lists€each€month€that€summarized€the€purchases€from€theÏprevious€month,€and€Depew€was€aware€of€which€customers€had€credit€limitsÏwith€Amarr.€€Depew€had€access€to€profit€and€loss€statements,€sales€totals,Ïexpense€figures€and€maximum€and€minimum€pricing€levels.€€Mr.€Jay€Tilley,ÏAmarrððs€District€Manager,€testified€that€the€four€trade€secrets€of€importanceÏwere€the€customer€list,€the€customer€credit€information,€the€pricingÍinformation,€and€the€profit€and€loss€statements.€€Ìà àHowever,€Depew€testified,€concerning€the€customer€list,€that€it€isÏcommon€knowledge€who€is€in€the€door€business€in€the€area€because€all€advertiseÏin€the€phone€book.€€Depew€also€testified€that€the€price€lists€were€available€toÏanyone€if€they€were€in€the€door€business.€€Tilley€admitted€that€AmarrððsÏcustomer€list€was€primarily€developed€through€trade€publications€and€the€YellowÏPages,€and€that€the€customer€base€is€primarily€made€up€of€door€installation€andÏbuilding€supply€companies.€€Tilley€further€admitted€that€all€competitorsÏprobably€keep€track€of€Amarrððs€prices€and€that€Amarr€tracks€all€of€theirÏcompetitorððs€prices.€€Tilley€stated€that€Amarr€did€not€have€a€patent€on€any€ofÏits€garage€doors,€and€that€there€was€nothing€really€special€about€being€aÏsalesman€for€Amarr.Ìà àUpon€the€promotion€to€manager,€Depew€enrolled€in€AmarrððsÏmanagement€incentive€plan.€€The€plan€permitted€managers€to€receive€a€bonusÏbased€on€their€monthly€sales€achievements.€€The€plan€included€the€followingÏlanguage:€ð ðParticipants€must€be€employed€at€fiscal€year€end€(June€30th)€to€beÏeligible€to€participate€in€that€yearððs€management€incentive€plan.ðð€€This€languageÏwas€inserted€into€the€plan€in€May€of€1994,€but€Depew€knew€that€changes€hadÏbeen€made€to€the€plan.€€It€was€stipulated€by€the€parties€that,€as€of€June€15,Í1995,€Depew€had€earned€a€bonus€of€$4,400.00€under€the€management€incentiveÏplan€for€sales€of€110%€above€his€quota,€but€that€he€was€not€employed€by€AmarrÏat€the€end€of€the€fiscal€year.€€€€Ìà àIn€the€spring€of€1995,€Depew€was€disciplined€and€received€a€writtenÏreprimand.€€Depew€received€numerous€oral€warnings€about€job€performance,Ïbut€also€received€some€satisfactory€job€evaluations.€€On€June€15,€1995,€TilleyÏmade€a€surprise€visit€to€the€Tri„Cities€Door€Center€which€resulted€in€DepewððsÏtermination.€€Approximately€two€weeks€after€his€termination,€Depew€went€toÏwork€for€R€&€M€Door€Systems€as€a€salesman.€€R€&€M€sells€garage€doors€and€isÏin€direct€competition€with€Amarr.€€Despite€the€language€of€the€covenant€not€toÏcompete,€Depew€contacted€and€made€sales€to€Amarrððs€customers.€€Therefore,ÏAmarr€filed€this€action€seeking€an€injunction€that€enforced€the€covenant€not€toÏcompete.€€Ìà àThe€trial€court€found€that€Depew€would€have€an€unfair€advantage€overÏAmarr€because€of€his€access€to€customer€lists,€credit€information€and€theÏpricing€levels.€€However,€the€trial€court€decided€that€the€covenant€not€toÏcompete€was€too€broad€and€too€expansive€and€changed€the€terms€to€provide€forÍa€one€year€no€compete€period€and€a€one„hundred€mile€no€competition€radius.× ƒ/ ××  ×€ÏThe€court€then€enjoined€and€prohibited€Depew€from€engaging€in€the€wholesaleÏgarage€door€sales€business.€€The€trial€court€also€held€that€Depew€was€notÏentitled€to€receive€a€bonus.Ìà àDepew€then€perfected€this€appeal€and€presents€the€following€issues€forÏour€consideration:€(1)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€finding€that€the€covenantÏnot€to€compete,€as€modified,€was€reasonable;€and€(2)€whether€the€trial€courtÏerred€in€ruling€that€he€was€not€entitled€to€the€bonus.€Ìà àAgreements€in€restraint€of€trade,€such€as€covenants€restrictingÏcompetition,€are€not€invalid€per€se.€€Although€disfavored€by€law,€suchÏagreements€are€valid€and€will€be€enforced€provided€they€are€deemed€reasonableÏunder€the€particular€circumstances.€€òòò òHeyer„Jordan€&€Associates,€Inc.€v.€Jordanó óóó,Ï801€S.W.2d€814,€820€(Tenn.€App.€1990).€Ìà àIf€the€circumstances€indicate€no€bad€faith€on€part€of€the€employer,€theÏcovenant€not€to€compete€may€be€enforced€to€the€extent€that€it€is€reasonablyÏnecessary€to€protect€the€employer's€interest€without€imposing€undue€hardshipÏon€the€employee€when€the€public€interest€is€not€adversely€affected.€€ò òòòCentralÍAdjustment€Bureau,€Inc.€v.€Ingramó óóó,€678€S.W.2d€28,€37€(Tenn.€1984).€Ìà àThe€issue€before€this€Court€boils€down€to€a€question€of€reasonableness.€ÏThe€Supreme€Court€has€indicated€some€factors€which€should€be€considered€inÏmaking€the€determination:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àThere€is€no€inflexible€formula€for€deciding€theÏubiquitous€question€of€reasonableness,€insofar€asÏnoncompetitive€covenants€are€concerned.€€€Each€caseÏmust€stand€or€fall€on€its€own€facts.€€€However,€thereÏare€certain€elements€which€should€always€beÏconsidered€in€ascertaining€the€reasonableness€of€suchÏagreements.€Among€these€are:€€the€considerationÏsupporting€the€agreements;€€the€threatened€danger€toÏthe€employer€in€the€absence€of€such€an€agreement;€Ïthe€economic€hardship€imposed€on€the€employee€byÏsuch€a€covenant;€€and€whether€or€not€such€a€covenantÏshould€be€inimical€to€public€interest.ÌÌÓÓ€òòò òAllRight€Auto€Parks€Inc.€v.€Berryó óóó,€219€Tenn.€280,€285,€409€S.W.2d€361,€363Ï(1966).Ìà àThe€consideration€supporting€the€agreement€is€not€in€issue,€and€theÏquestion€of€public€interest€is€not€a€relevant€factor€in€this€case,€so€they€will€notÏbe€considered.€€Therefore,€we€must€balance€the€threat€to€the€employer€and€theÏeconomic€hardship€imposed€on€the€employee.€€More€particularly,€the€issue€isÏwhether€the€employer€has€a€legitimate€business€interest€for€the€protection€ofÏwhich€a€restrictive€covenant€is€reasonable.€€ò òòòSee€Hasty€v.€Rent„A„Driver,€Inc.ó óóó,Ï671€S.W.2d€471,€473€(Tenn.€1984).€€The€Supreme€Court€has€recognized€certainÍlegitimate€business€interests€that€are€entitled€to€protection:€€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àSuch€legitimate€business€interests€include€trade€orÏbusiness€secrets€or€other€confidential€information.€ÏRestrictive€covenants€have€been€held€reasonable€whereÏthe€employee€closely€associates€or€has€repeatedÏcontact€with€the€employer's€customers€so€that€theÏcustomer€tends€to€associate€the€employer's€businessÏwith€the€employee.€€Covenants€have€also€been€heldÏreasonable€in€order€to€prevent€misuse€of€customerÏlists.Ì€ÌÓÓ€€òòò òHastyó óóó,€671€S.W.2d€at€473€(citations€omitted).à àÌà àThe€employer€cannot€use€a€restrictive€covenant€to€prevent€ordinaryÏcompetition€from€former€employees.€€To€enforce€a€covenant€not€to€compete,Ïthe€employer€must€be€able€to€show€the€presence€of€special€facts€above€andÏbeyond€ordinary€competition€that€would€give€an€unfair€advantage€to€theÏemployee€when€competing€with€œhis€former›€employer.€€òòò òId.ó óóó€Ìà àAmarr€argues€that€unless€Depew€is€enjoined,€he€will€have€an€unfairÏadvantage€over€them€because€of€his€previous€access€to€customer€lists,€customerÏcredit€information,€pricing€levels,€and€profit€and€loss€statements.€€The€trialÏcourt€found€that€Depew€would€have€an€unfair€advantage€because€of€thisÏinformation.€€We€must€respectfully€disagree.€€We€do€not€believe€that€Amarr€hasÏshown€a€legitimate€business€interest€that€needs€to€be€protected€or€that€thisÏinformation€would€give€Depew€an€unfair€advantage.€€Ìà àIn€the€case€of€òòò òHeyer„Jordan€&€Associates,€Inc.€v.€Jordanó óóó,€801€S.W.2d€814Ï(Tenn.€App.€1990),€this€Court€explored€the€meaning€of€ð ðconfidentialÏinformationðð€and€ð ðtrade€secrets.ðð€€In€that€case,€the€defendants€were€salesÏrepresentatives€for€the€plaintiff,€Heyer„Jordan,€a€manufacturerððs€salesÏrepresentative€company.€€After€the€defendants€resigned,€they€formed€their€ownÏcompany€that€went€into€direct€competition€with€their€old€employer.€€Heyer„Jordan€sued€to€enforce€a€covenant€not€to€compete.€€In€ò òòòHeyer„Jordanó óóó,€this€CourtÏstated:€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àà àThe€proof€established€that€manufacturersÏroutinely€furnish€a€selling€agent€the€informationÏand/or€training€concerning€their€products.€€In€the€caseÏat€bar,€it€was€developed€that€when€Jordan€and€BrownÏwere€first€hired€by€Heyer„Jordan€they€were€furnishedÏthe€information€initially€about€purchasers€of€variousÏmanufacturers'€products.€€However,€this€informationÏhas€lost€its€importance€because€Heyer„Jordan€does€notÏrepresent€the€same€manufacturers€that€it€representedÏat€the€time€Jordan€and€Brown€were€initially€hired.€ÏThe€proof€does€not€establish€that€there€were€anyÏconfidential€customer€lists€furnished€to€Jordan€andÏBrown€and€both€Jordan€and€Brown€testified€that€thereÏare€many€sources€available€to€determine€the€identityÏof€potential€purchasers€of€the€manufacturer'sÏproducts,€including,€but€not€limited€to,€telephoneÏbook€yellow€pages,€trade€magazines€and€registrationÏlists€of€trade€associations€conventions.€€ÌÌà àà àà àà à*à àà à*à àà à*ÌÌà8 àà8 àà àIn€the€case€at€bar,€it€appears€that€all€of€theÍinformation€acquired€by€Jordan€and€Brown€and€usedÏby€them€in€their€competitive€effort€was€generalÏinformation€available€in€the€trade€and€businessÏinvolvement,€and€that€they€were€not€privy€to€anyÏconfidential€business€information€which€they€used€inÏviolation€of€the€contract.€€In€ò òòòSelox,€Inc.€v.€Fordóóó ó,€675ÏS.W.2d€474€(Tenn.1984)€our€Supreme€Court€quotedÏwith€approval€comment€"g"€to€€ðð188€of€theÏRestatement€of€Contracts.€€The€last€sentence€of€theÏquotation€approved€by€the€court€states:€€"A€line€mustÏbe€drawn€between€the€general€skills€and€knowledge€ofÏthe€trade€and€information€that€is€peculiar€to€theÏemployer's€business."€€675€S.W.2d€at€476.ÌÌÓÓòòò òHeyer„Jordan€&€Associatesó óóó,€801€S.W.2d€at€820„22.Ìà àIn€the€case€òòsub€judiceóó,€the€proof€is€similar.€€When€Depew€was€hired,€AmarrÏtrained€him€concerning€the€product€and€gave€him€information€about€theirÏcustomers.€€Depew€was€given€customer€lists€each€month,€but€like€ò òòòHeyer„Jordanó óóó,Ïthe€identity€of€the€potential€customers€could€be€determined€from€the€YellowÏPages€and€a€study€of€the€industry.€€We€do€not€see€how€these€customer€listsÏwere€confidential€information€or€that€they€were€misused.€€The€informationÏreceived€by€Depew€was€general€information€available€to€the€trade€and€did€notÏgive€him€an€unfair€advantage.€€Ìà àWe€also€do€not€see€how€a€profit€and€loss€statement€can€be€a€ð ðtradeÏsecretðð€that€gives€an€unfair€advantage.€€Likewise,€the€price€lists€were€readilyÏavailable€to€any€purchaser€who€was€comparing€prices€between€competitors,€andÍthe€price€lists€were€tracked€by€all€competitors.€€The€price€lists€also€cannot€beÏclassified€as€a€trade€secret,€nor€can€it€be€argued€that€access€to€the€price€listsÏgives€an€unfair€advantage.€€Selling€on€price€is€ordinary€competition€that€happensÏevery€day€in€this€state.€€We€do€not€believe€that€Amarr€has€alleged€special€factsÏthat€show€a€legitimate€business€interest€that€needs€to€be€protected.€€òòò òSee€alsoÏSelox,€Inc.€v.€Fordó óóó,€675€S.W.2d€474€(Tenn.€1984)€(protection€from€non„competition€agreement€not€needed€where€the€identity€of€customers€ð ðcould€beÏascertained€by€anyone€of€reasonable€intelligence€by€a€mere€reference€to€theÏYellow€Pagesðð€and€where€the€defendant€had€no€specialized€training€and€theÏwork€ð ðcould€have€been€performed€by€any€other€employee€of€averageÏcompetence.ðð)Ìà àThe€Supreme€Court€has€observed€that€"[r]estrictive€Covenants€have€beenÏheld€reasonable€where€the€employee€closely€associates€or€has€repeated€contactÏwith€the€employer's€customers€so€that€the€customer€tends€to€associate€theÏemployer's€business€with€the€employee."€€òòò òHastyó óóó,€671€S.W.2d€at€473.€€DepewÏadmitted€contacting€some€of€Amarrððs€customers.€€However,€we€do€not€believeÏthat€these€contacts€are€anything€more€than€ordinary€competition,€and€the€proofÏdoes€not€show€that€Amarrððs€customers€associate€Amarrððs€business€with€Depew.€ÏIf€anything,€the€proof€showed€that€some€customers€were€dissatisfied€withÍDepew€and€were€happy€to€continue€buying€from€Amarr€since€Depew€was€gone.Ìà àFinally,€the€scope€of€a€covenant€is€another€factor€that€must€be€consideredÏwhen€determining€whether€or€how€to€enforce€it.€€To€be€enforceable,€theÏrestriction€must€not€be€overly€broad€in€its€geographic€scope,€or€in€the€timeÏperiod€during€which€it€applies.€€ò òòòDabora,€Inc.€v.€Klineó óóó,€884€S.W.2d€475,€478Ï(Tenn.€App.€1994).€€The€trial€court€found€ð ðthat€there€was€no€evidence€ofÏreasonableness€of€the€terms€of€the€restrictions€as€to€time€and€territoryÏcontained€in€the€covenant€not€to€compete,€and€that€the€actual€time€andÏterritory€restrictions€were€too€broad€and€too€expansive,€and€should€be€modifiedÏby€the€Court.ðð€€We€agree€with€the€trial€court€that€the€covenant€not€to€competeÏwas€overly€broad€in€both€the€geographic€scope€and€the€time€period.€€However,Ïwe€believe€that€the€restriction€should€not€have€been€modified€because€AmarrÏhas€not€shown€special€facts€establishing€a€legitimate€business€interest€that€needsÏprotection.€€Therefore,€we€hold€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€enjoining€Depew€asÏset€out€in€the€final€decree.à àÌà àDepew€also€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€ruling€that€he€was€notÏentitled€to€his€bonus.€€Depew€asserts€that€he€is€entitled€to€the€bonus€on€theÏbasis€of€òòquantum€merit.óó€€Amarr€awarded€a€bonus€to€managers€who€exceeded€salesÏgoals€under€a€Management€Incentive€Plan.€€The€Plan€stated,€ð ðParticipants€mustÍbe€employed€at€fiscal€year€end€(June€30th)€to€be€eligible€to€participate€in€thatÏyearððs€Management€Incentive€Plan.ðð€€Depew€claims€that€Amarr€owes€himÏ$4,400.00€that€he€earned€under€the€incentive€plan.€Ìà àEvery€contract€imposes€upon€each€party€a€duty€of€good€faith€and€fairÏdealing€in€its€performance€and€enforcement.€€òòò òWinfree€v.€Educators€CreditÏUnionó óóó,€900€S.W.2d€285,€289€(Tenn.€App.€1995).€€However,€Depew€has€notÏalleged€a€lack€of€good€faith€on€the€part€of€Amarr.€€Therefore,€we€must€interpretÏthe€contract€based€on€the€words€of€the€provision€alone.€€The€cardinal€rule€forÏinterpretation€of€contracts€is€to€ascertain€the€intention€of€the€parties€from€theÏcontract€as€a€whole€and€to€give€effect€to€that€intention€consistent€with€legalÏprinciples.€€ò òòòId.óó€€ó óWhere€there€is€no€ambiguity,€it€is€the€duty€of€the€court€toÏapply€to€the€words€used€their€ordinary€meaning€and€neither€party€is€to€beÏfavored€in€their€construction.€€ò òòòId.€ó óóóÌà àIn€the€case€òòsub€judiceóó,€the€words€of€the€contract€are€not€ambiguous.€€To€beÏeligible€for€a€bonus,€an€employee€must€have€been€employed€at€the€end€of€theÏfiscal€year.€€The€evidence€shows€that€Depew€was€terminated€on€June€15,€1995,Ïand€the€fiscal€year€ended€on€June€30,€1995.€€By€the€words€of€the€contract,ÏDepew€is€not€entitled€to€his€bonus€because€he€was€not€employed€by€Amarr€atÏfiscal€year€end.€€Employment€at€fiscal€year€end€was€a€condition€precedent€toÍpayment€of€the€bonus,€and€Depew€was€unable€to€satisfy€the€condition.€ÏTherefore,€the€contract€must€be€enforced€as€written.€Ìà àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€granting€injunctive€relief€isÏœreversed.€€The€judgment€in€all€other€respects€is€affirmed.›€€Costs€of€this€appealÏare€assessed€€one„half€to€appellant€and€one„half€to€appellee.ÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à_________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€W.S.ó óÌò òCONCUR:ÌÌ_________________________________ÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€JUDGEó óÌÌ_________________________________Ìò òSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEó óœÔ€Ô