WPCd # VU:a % 0w@ 4    0L 0JY 0T 0^ 0hU 0r 0|/ 0 01 1uU,6 0dbU,U*B)DCE B AMv~v+ D3 0@1 0Nq AO 0D D/ BGHP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPT0 ,  AZ"Arial RegularX(,$  HTR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalTXXXX7>XXdXXd7 hiDjkDlmnEoeepӀ|U![ 3|x|HR> $Large Circle0 2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)<  9p`(ModernP 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(Monaco<  9p`(Arial% Line 7 d####7Border 1dd d-$C << G  !  #d#"    H \RA'\#d#  "   YYY FILED"X August20,1996CecilCrowson,Jr."AppellateCourtClerk PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'`Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Monaco   BA Op Monaco  BA Op Monaco %%%%'dxd("$    >$Large Circle0  -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . &!!Xd&#!!Xd#"    H \RA'\#Xd##Xd#  ݛ   L&'$;+'h|` 0* `LߛINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSFORTHESTATEOFTENNESSEEEASTERNSECTIONATKNOXVILLE   CSJTRAVEL,INC.,   )      ) BLOUNTCHANCERY  Plaintiff/Appellant   )      ) NO.03A019604CH00142v.      )      )STEVENPAYNE,    ) AFFIRMEDINPART;      ) REVERSEDINPART Defendant/Appellee  )  ANDREMANDED.L.LeeKull,Maryville,FortheAppellantDavidT.Black,Maryville,FortheAppellee   OPINION         INMAN,SeniorJudge  ThesepartiesenteredintoanemploymentagreementonAugust30,1993foranindefiniteterm.CompensationwastobefixedbytheBoardofDirectors;thedefendantagreedtomaintaintheconfidentialityoftheemployersbusinessrecordsand,foraperiodofoneyearafterthedateofterminationofemploymentandwithin250milesfromMaryville,thedefendantagreedthathe         willnot,directlyorindirectlyown,manage,operatecontrol,beemployedby,participatein,orbeconnectedinanymannerwiththeownership,management,operationorcontrolofanytravelagency,firm,companyorotherentitythatinanymannersolicitsbusinessfromanyoftheaccounts,clientsorcustomersthataretheaccounts,clientsorcustomersofEmployerortheaccountsthatEmployee,duringthetermofhisemploymenthereunder,inanymannerservices,handles,orproducesorthatareassignedtoEmployee,orthatinanyway,directlyorindirectly,competeswithEmployer.EmployeeacknowledgesthatthefailureofEmployeetocomplywiththetermsofthisparagraphwouldcauseEmployerirreparableharm,andEmployeeagreesthatEmployershall,inadditiontowhateverotherremediesEmployermayhaveforanysuchviolationbyEmployee,havetherighttoobtainimmediateinjunctiverelieftoenforcetheprovisionsofthisSection.TheprovisionofthisSectionshallsurvivetheterminationorexpirationofthisAgreementforanyreason.      H     Thedefendantwasinitiallyemployedin1990andwastrainedasatravelagent.BeforetheformalagreementwasexecutedinAugust1993itwasprecededbydiscussionsconcerninganagreementnottocompeteandtomaintaintheconfidentialityofbusinessrecords,thesaleofcorporatestocktothedefendantandhiselectiontotheBoard. ConcomitantlywiththeexecutionoftheAgreement,thedefendantbecameashareholderandwaselectedtotheBoard. OneofthemostlucrativeaccountsoftheplaintiffwaswithMastercraft,whichwasservicedbythedefendant,whomaintainedaparttimeofficeonthepremisesofMastercraft,andneverallowedafellowagenttoassistwithitsbusiness. SeventeenmonthsaftertheEmploymentAgreementwasexecuted,thedefendantresigned,effectiveFebruary1,1995,andonthatdatecontractedforemploymentwithHMITravel,anagencynearWashingtonD.C.,morethan250milesfromMaryville. ThisactionwasfiledMarch14,1995foratemporaryinjunction.Theplaintiffallegedthatthedefendantviolatedandwascontinuingtoviolatehisagreementbyopenlysolicitingvariousaccounts. AhearingwasheldonMarch28,1995.Variouswitnessestestified,includingthedefendant,whocharacterizedhimselfasanindependenttravelagentworkingoutofhishomeinitially,butpresentlymaintaininganofficeinMaryville. TheChancellorissuedtheinjunctionlimited,ashereafternoted,uponfinding:0   thatthedefendantPayneterminatedhisemploymentandsubmittedhisresignation;  0   thatthedefendantexecutedtheagreementvoluntarily,withfullunderstandingandwithnoduress;  0   thatthetermsoftheagreementarereasonableunderthecircumstancesandnotunconscionable;  0   thattheagreementissupportedbyadequateconsideration;  0   thattheagreementismutuallyobligatoryandbinding;  0   thatthedefendantwasawareoftheconsequencesthatcouldresultwhenhesignedtheagreementandmustbeheldaccountable;  0   thatthegeographicandtimelimitationsintheagreementarenotunreasonable;  0   thattheemployerwilllikelysuffereconomiclossbytheviolationofthe H agreement;  0   thattheplaintiffsustainedtheallegationsintheComplaint.    TheChancellordeclinedtoenforcethecontractualprovisionswhichprohibitedthedefendantsemploymentwithanentitythatdirectlyorindirectlycompetedtheplaintiff.TheprovisionwhichforbadethesolicitationofcustomersofCSJTravel,Inc.wasenforced. ThesefindingsoftheChancellorarepresumptivelycorrectunlesstheevidenceotherwisepreponderates.Tenn.R.App.P.,Rule13(d);Leekv.Powell,884S.W.2d118(Tenn.App.1994).Wethinktheevidencepreponderatesagainstthejudgmentthatthecontractnottocompeteshouldnotbeenforced. Theemployerappeals,complainingofthefailureoftheChancellortoenforcetheagreementinitsentiretyandofhisfindingthatthepartiesintendedonlytopreventthedefendantfromsolicitationofhisemployerscustomers. Theemployeeappeals,complainingthattheChancellorerredinfailingtovoidtheAgreementbecauseitwasnotsupportedbyconsiderationandinholdingthat thereisnoevidenceintherecordthatthedefendantsoughtoutCSJscustomersunderthecommonlyunderstooddefinitionofthetermsolicit. ThefindingsoftheChancelloraresupportedbythegreatpreponderanceoftheevidence,andweconcurtherein,butwecannotagreethattheAgreement goestoofar,orthatitisambiguous.Thedefendantagreedthatuponleavingtheemploymentoftheplaintiffhewouldnotdirectlyorindirectlycompetewithit,norsolicititscustomers.Hebegancompetingonedayafterheterminatedhisemployment.Hisargumentthattheerstwhilecustomersoftheplaintiffsoughthisservicesandthathedidnotsolicitthembordersonsophistry. Agreementsnottocompetearenotfavoredandthetrendistoconstruethemfavorablytotheemployee.Buttheyarenotinvalidperse,andmaybeenforcediftheyarereasonableunderthecircumstances.Hastyv.RentaDriver,Inc.,671S.W.2d471(Tenn.1984).   Asstated,weagreewiththeChancellorthatthesubjectagreementisreasonableandthatthecontinuedemploymentofthedefendantwasadequateconsideration.Wecannotagree,however,thatthecovenantnottocompete goestoofar.SeeDiDeelandv.Colvin,347S.W.2d483(Tenn.1961);CentralAdj.Bureauv.Ingram,678S.W.2d28(Tenn.1984).Wenotethatthecovenantwastobeinforceforonlyoneyearandthat,asaresultofhisclose,personalrelationshipswithsomeoftheplaintiffscustomers,whichwasnurturedduringhisemploymentwiththeplaintiff,thesecustomersalmostimmediatelybegandoingbusinesswithhimafterheterminatedhisemploymentwiththeplaintiff. Theinjunctionhasbecomeamootissue,morethanayearhavingexpiredsincetheterminationofthedefendant.BecausetheChancellordeclinedtoenforcethenoncompeteprovision,theplaintiffcouldnotproveanydamagesitsustainedasaresultofthedefendantsactionsandseeksaremandforadeterminationofanysuchdamagesintheeventthisCourtfindsthenoncompeteprovisiontobeenforceable. WeaffirmthejudgmentwithrespecttothefindingthatthedefendantsolicitedtheplaintiffscustomersinviolationoftheAgreement;wereversethejudgmentwithrespecttothefindingthattheprovisionnottocompeteisunenforceable,andremandthecaseforfurtherproof,ifany,ontheissueofdamages,ifany. Costsareassessedtotheappellee.            򀀀      WilliamH.Inman,SeniorJudgeConcur:򀀀DonT.McMurray,Judge򀀀HerschelP.Franks,Judge%