WPCC #MjVzc{5]BhjY_ȥ@ւ"5R4hY4};a&!lQ`c3Cc(R*b/oFȏ.L DCW-D$ i06btэo(Q\iOhSMVh#ٓ^w9B6?Btܭ.PMJ^{fs> wh mؖ)'gi>u\vR^N:Xxޙ<Ŧ#5Z.DG\FP xuXˣD3$o3P2AۺvY:oj i)O0\DĘ[ei@bHGWĤ`*p\[@G=^` 9m2'd;bCݓ{6F%4ݵj=CN><b_xzoZiijI K;l;9vV2n{f`#!@UNa % 0:U8 0' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0j 0C 0 0 0 0 0w 0G 0 0 0 0i 0D 0 0 0 0 0^ 0' 0 0F 06 00," 0\# 0# 0<$ 0$ 0t% 0:& 0T& 0B& 0' 0( 0) 0* 0+ 0, 0- 0- 0. 0U/ 1e'0 70 B-0 0C0 0 1U*1U>11 0$~34 1u; 72 <^ ?<wK<4O<c<r< mt< 1<UB=T=N\=^=s== AQ===G=U:5?ro?o?o?o?o? BAA 0VB 0VC 0DpCpC D3CHP LaserJet 8000 DN PS0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,<4 9Z+ Courier New 2G+J 0_level1  X /%4 4 <DL/23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2D+J 0_level2   ," <DL,23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2A+J 0_level3   ) <DL)23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2>+J 0_level4  ` &<<DL&23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2;+J 0_level5   #DL#23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  28+J 0_level6    DL 23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  25+J 0_level7  h DDL23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  22+J 0_level8   L23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2/+J 0_level9    L23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2GJ 0_levsl1  X /%4 4 <DL/23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2DJ 0_levsl2   ," <DL,23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2AJ 0_levsl3   ) <DL)23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2>J 0_levsl4  ` &<<DL&23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2;J 0_levsl5   #DL#23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  28J 0_levsl6    DL 23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  25J 0_levsl7  h DDL23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  22J 0_levsl8   L23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2/J 0_levsl9    L23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2GJ 0_levnl1  X /%4 4 <DL/23   2( 4 <DL2  2DJ 0_levnl2   ," <DL,23   2( 4 <DL2  2AJ 0_levnl3   ) <DL)23   2( 4 <DL2  2>J 0_levnl4  ` &<<DL&23   2( 4 <DL2  2;J 0_levnl5   #DL#23   2( 4 <DL2  28J 0_levnl6    DL 23   2( 4 <DL2  25J 0_levnl7  h DDL23   2( 4 <DL2  22J 0_levnl8   L23   2( 4 <DL2  2/J 0_levnl9    L23   2( 4 <DL2  6~ 4heading 1       ?;%2A`Arial?     XXXS<\  `&Times New RomanS  6v }4heading 2  ?;%2A`Arial?   XXXS<\  `&Times New RomanS  6s z4heading 3  ?;%2A`Arial?   XXXS<\  `&Times New RomanS  64 '4heading 4     XXX  67 *4heading 5     XXX  <:Default Para:008Body Text 2  X XXX  X XXX0;;.footer   !XXX   !XXX:8page number<$$:footnote tex  XXX  <:footnote ref<M1J :Outline001_1  X /%4 4 <DL/d23  d..  2( 4 <DL2  <J1J :Outline001_2   ," <DL,d23  d..  2( 4 <DL2  <G1J :Outline001_3 j  ) <DL)d23  d..  2( 4 <DL2 j <D1J :Outline001_4  ` &<<DL&d23  d..  2( 4 <DL2  <A1J :Outline001_5   #DL#d23  d..  2( 4 <DL2  <>1J :Outline001_6 j   DL d23  d..  2( 4 <DL2 j <;1J :Outline001_7  h DDLd23  d..  2( 4 <DL2  <81J :Outline001_8   Ld23  d..  2( 4 <DL2  <51J :Outline001_9 j   Ld23  d..  2( 4 <DL2 j (-2$ !USUS.,  ,-./0123 35;AGMSY_11.a.i.1.a.i.1.a.64i.)Hairline d($    (B2$ !USUS.,    0  %2A`Arial\  `&Times New Roman  5)USUS.,  _ @ <XD<XXX! !X!( @ $ !!$<XD<XX<XD<  $ !!$ @ (      1  <ttDЃ:QuickFormat1XXX  cb  2 XXX  cb  2   !USUS.,  _<XD<XXX<( 4 <DLX< @  @ X+   P       2  +  <oX<XD<#o<o=#oԀMotionstoamendpleadingstoconformtotheevidenceare l  governedby_T.R.C.P._Ԁ15.02: Whenissuesnotraisedbythepleadingsaretriedbyexpressorimpliedconsentoftheparties,theyshallbetreatedinallrespectsasiftheyhadbeenraisedinthepleadings.Suchamendmentofthepleadingsasmaybenecessarytocausethemtoconformtotheevidenceandtoraisetheseissuesmaybemadeuponmotionofanypartyatanytime,evenafterjudgment;butfailuresotoamenddoesnotaffecttheresultofthetrialoftheseissues....Ifevidenceisobjectedtoatthetrialonthegroundthatitisnotwithintheissuesmadebythepleadings,thecourtmayallowthe ^   pleadingstobeamendedandshalldosofreelywhenthepresentationofthemeritsoftheactionwillbesubservedtherebyandtheobjectingpartyfailstosatisfythecourtthattheadmissionofsuchevidencewouldprejudicethatpartyinmaintainingtheactionordefenseuponthemerits.Thecourtmaygrantacontinuancetoenabletheobjectingpartytomeetsuchevidence.#o##XD<Xo#  z  @ X##37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)@i)ՕS'L tpO'ͣ3|xU(CEKQW]cioAutoList2i.i.i.i.i.i.i.i.&NXZ*CaslonOpnface BT           Z[\]_C<<C = ["USUS.,  _SXXXXSwXSX   Ad FILEDS Sw  October19,1999Cecil_Crowson_,Jr.AppellateCourtClerkdA ,cAZ"Arial Regular h_ԀXXXXXX1CrossstrenuouslyarguesthatmuchofwhathelearnedwhileaVantage P  employeeisofnousetohimbecauseheusesadifferentmachine.HealsoarguesthattheinformationintheVantagedoctordiariesisnotrelevanttotheservicescurrentlybeingprovidedbyhim.Eveniftrue,thisdoesnotaffectourholdingthatthetotalityofthecircumstances"training,confidentialinformationandrelationships"amountstoa_protectable_ԀbusinessinterestofVantage. dLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(.3$ !USUS.,  (.3$ !USUS.,  ($$   1  YYYY'dxd !USUS.,  _TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'TP   '  XXD<XXX  XXXXXD<X=& 1   _xOR_B2.jz `@E< tttP x_'  _INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE' ݌ P  Ќ  XXXX  ATKNOXVILLEi   `     h      p      `     h     6" ,X` X 7pXX6VANTAGETECHNOLOGY,LLC,0 h )C/ANO.03A019810CH00333h(#h(#    `     h )   ` PlaintiffAppellant,)   `     h )   `     h )   `     h )   `     h )0 7  7(#7(# b H(83@bv. `     h )0 7 APPEALASOFRIGHTFROMTHE 7(#7(#    `     h )0 7 HAMBLENCOUNTYCHANCERYCOURT` 7(#7(#    `     h )   `     h )   `     h )   `     h )0 7 7(#7(# MARKCROSS,0 0 (# (#0h(#(#)07h(#h(#7(#7(#    `     h )HONORABLETHOMASR.FRIERSON,IIX   ` DefendantAppellee.)CHANCELLOR   `     h      `     h      `     h      `     h   XForAppellant0 0 (# (#0h(#(#0 h(#h(#07 (# (#ForAppellee!h7(#7(#    `     h   J.FORDLITTLE0  0h(#(#0 h(#h(#07 (# (#H.SCOTTREAMSd#7(#7(# MICHAELJ.KING0  0h(#(#0 h(#h(#07 (# (#Taylor,Reams,:$7(#7(# Woolf,McClane,Bright,0 h 0 h(#h(#07 (# (#Tilson&Harrison% 7(#7(# ЀAllen&Carpenter,PLLC0  07 (# (#Morristown,Tennessee%!7(#7(# Knoxville,Tennessee0 h 0 h(#h(#07 (# (#&l"7(#7(#    `     h    7    `  0  0h(#(#0 h(#h(#  (# (#   IXZ XXX I  ! XIXZOPINION#IXZ X !I P#  1J'/   XX XIXZREVERSEDINPARTAFFIRMEDINPARTREMANDED0 ` 0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0 h(#h(#07 (# (#'1P ]0p7(#7(#0p(#p(#0 (#(#0x (# (#Susano,J. :F09x(#x(# LPMPK ,X` X 7pX ,X` X 7pXK ` VantageTechnology,LLC( Vantage)filedthissuitagainstitsformeremployee,MarkCross( Cross),seekinginjunctivereliefanddamagesforbreachofanoncompetitioncovenant.Followingabenchtrial,theChancellorfoundthatthecovenantwasunreasonableandunenforceable.Vantageappeals,raisingthefollowingissuesforourconsideration:b 6,-./01234(08Hb` ` 1.Didthetrialcourterrinfindingthatthenoncompetitioncovenantwasunreasonableandunenforceable?  2.DidthetrialcourterrindenyingVantagesmotiontoamenditspleadingstoconformtotheevidence?` n` |  ,Q( 4 <DL ,X` X 7pXQ ,?( 4 <DL4X?AppelleeCrossraisestheadditionalissueofwhetherthetrialcourterredinapplyingTennesseelawratherthanIllinoislaw. 2  I.FactsandProceduralHistory #F A.VantagesBusiness  U  2>ЃXXXXXXXXcb     >Ѓ  Vantagesbusinessinvolvestherenderingofaservice )P$ toophthalmologistsinahospitalsetting.Tobestunderstandthefactsofthiscase,itisnecessarytohaveanelementarygraspofcataractsurgerylogistics,especiallyasitrelatestotherelationshipsofthepartiesinvolved.Whenanophthalmologistdeterminesthatapatientneedssurgerytoremovecataracts,thephysicianmustthenchoose,fromamongthehospitalsatwhichthedoctorhasprivileges,thefacilityatwhichthesurgeryistobeperformed.Becausephysiciansoftenprefertoperformsurgerywithcertainequipment,supplies,andinstruments,thepresenceorabsenceoftheseaccoutermentsata X:08 LP L  L  particularhospitalisoftenthedeterminingfactorinthesurgeonschoiceoflocation.Thus,hospitals,incompetitionwithoneanotherforfacilityusagefees,oftenseektoattractsurgeonsbyofferingthetoolsthatsurgeonsprefer.Whilelargerhospitalsaregenerallyabletoprovidethesetoolsinhouse,ruralhospitalsmustoftenobtainthemfromthirdparties.Thesethirdparties,sometimesreferredtoas mobileserviceproviders,transportthenecessaryequipmenttothehospitalwhenasurgeonisscheduledtoperformcataractsurgery.Thesemobileserviceprovidersaredrivenbythesameincentivesasarethehospitals"toprovidetheequipment,supplies,instrumentsandservicesthatsurgeonsprefer.>Ѓt݌̌XXXXXXXXcb      ` Vantage,asoneofthesemobileserviceproviders,employstechnicianstotransporttherequiredmaterialstoruralhospitalsandtoassistthephysiciansduringsurgery.CrossisaformerVantagetechnician.Forthereasonsoutlinedabove,Vantagehasaninterestininitiating,developing,andsustainingrelationshipsnotonlywithhospitals,butalsowiththephysiciansperformingcataractsurgeryatthehospitals.Toinitiatesuchrelationships,Vantageutilizesdirectmailingsorfacetofacedemonstrationstosellitsservicestohospitals.VantagedelegatestothetechnicianstheongoingtaskofdevelopingandsustainingtheserelationshipsbecauseatechnicianistheprimaryliaisonbetweenVantageandthedoctorsandhospitals.Infurtheranceofthegoalofrelationshipbuilding,Vantageencouragesitstechnicianstouseentertainmentexpenseaccountstopurchasemealsorgiftsforphysiciansandothersurgicalstaff. :|0: AnothermethodthatVantageemploystobuildandstrengthenrelationshipsisthecollectionandrecordationofsurgeonpreferences.These doctordiariesareusedtorecordsurgeonspreferencesformachinesettings,supplies,andinstruments.ThisinformationisinitiallygatheredandloggedinbyaVantagesalesperson.Whenatechnicianisassignedtoaparticularsurgeon,thetechnicianreferstothediarytodeterminewhatequipmenttobringandhowtosetupthemachine,instrumentsandsupplies.Thedoctordiariesalsoincludepersonalinformationaboutthedoctorsuchashobbiesandinterests.Partofthetechniciansresponsibilityistorecordinthedoctordiariesanychangeinsurgeonpreferencesorproblemsencounteredduringsurgery.Thetechniciansarealsorequiredtoreportgrowthopportunitiesofwhichtheybecomeawareduringtheperformanceoftheirduties. d# TheprimarypieceofequipmentthatVantageprovidestohospitalsisaphacoemulsificationmachine.Thismachineisusedtobreakcataractsintopiecesandremovethepiecesthroughirrigationandaspiration.Oncethecataractisremoved,thesurgeonimplantsanartificiallensintotheeye.Surgerywiththemachineenablesthesurgeontoutilizeamuchsmallerincisionwhich,inturn,allowsaneasierandshorterrecuperationtimeforthepatient.Additionally,themachinesallowsurgeonstoperformmorecataractsurgeriesinlesstime. 4)2 Inadditiontoprovidingthemachine,Vantagealsoprovidessupplies,instruments,andtechnicianservices.Thetechnicianspresurgeryresponsibilitiesincludetransportationoftheequipment,settingupthemachinesparametersaccording :|0: tothesurgeonspreferences,tuningthehandpiece, breakingoutthesuppliesandinstruments,andpreparingtheroomforsurgery.Duringsurgery,thetechnicianstaysbythemachineandchangesthemachinesmodesbypressingbuttonsaccordingtothesurgeonsinstructions.Thesurgeon,notthetechnician,placesthemachinetiptotheeyeandotherwiseoperatesthemachineduringsurgerythroughtheuseoffootpedals.   Nomedicaltrainingoreducationisrequiredfortechnicians,nordotechniciansneedtobelicensed.Onecanbetrainedtooperatethemachineinasingleday.Atrainedtechniciancansetuptheparameterpreferencesinapproximately15seconds.Aphysiciancanperformsurgerywithoutatechnicianintheroom.Still,atechniciansresponsibilitiesrequireadegreeoffamiliaritywiththemachine. d# FromOctober,1994,toAugust,1996,Vantage,with15to18employees,providedmobileservicesto70to100hospitalsineightstates,includingTennessee.FourhospitalsinTennesseearerelevanttothiscase:FortSandersLoudonMedicalCenter( FortSandersLoudon)inLoudon;LakewayRegionalHospital( Lakeway)inMorristown;LaFolletteMedicalCenter( LaFollette)inLaFollette;andFortSandersSeviervilleMedicalCenter( FortSandersSevierville)inSevierville. p2 (0  VantageprovidedmobileservicestoFortSandersLoudon 4)2 underanexclusivecontractfromAugust15,1995,toAugust14,1996.Afterterminationofthecontract,Vantageprovided servicesatleastoncemoreonSeptember4,1996.Theprimary  9.8 MP M  M  ophthalmologistperformingcataractsurgeryatFortSandersLoudonwasDr.SubbaRaoGollamudi.   X  VantageprovidedmobileservicestoLakewayundera T oneyear,nonexclusivecontractbeginningonOctober1,1995.Dr.GollamudiwasalsotheprimaryophthalmologistatLakeway. X   VantageprovidedmobileservicestoLaFolletteonone   occasionin1994.BecauseLaFollettewas,atthattime,satisfiedwithitsownmachineandbecauseLaFolletteandVantagecouldnotcometoanagreementregardingprice,LaFollettedidnotbecomeaVantagecustomer. `  VantagefirstcontactedFortSandersSeviervillein   April,1998,twomonthspriortotrial. d#    0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ B.CrossEmploymentwithandDeparturefromVantage %   54   &r" F4CrossbeganemploymentwithVantageasatechnicianinOctober,1994.Hisqualificationsforthepositionincludedabachelorsofsciencedegreeinadministrativemanagementandexperiencefromavarietyofjobs.Hehadnoexperience,trainingoreducationdirectlyrelevanttotheoperationofphacoemulsificationmachines. 1P'/ InJanuary,1995,Crosssignedacovenantnottocompete,whichprovidesasfollows: 6T,5 ` `  [d]uringthetermhereofandforaperiodofthreeyearsthereafter,theEmployeeshallnotcompete,directlyorindirectly,withtheCompanyinterferewith,disruptorattemptto :0: disrupttherelationship,contractualorotherwise,betweentheCompanyandanycustomer,client,supplier,consultantoremployeesoftheCompany,including,withoutlimitation,employingorbeinganinvestor(representingmorethana5%equityinterest)in,orofficer,directororconsultantto,anypersonorentitywhichemploysanyformerkeyortechnicalemployeewhoseemploymentwiththeCompanywasterminatedafterthedatewhichisoneyearpriortothedateofterminationoftheEmployeesemploymenttherewith.AnactivitycompetitivewithanactivityengagedinbytheCompanyshallmeanperformingservices(whetherasanemployee,officer,consultant,director,partnerorsoleproprietor)foranypersonorentityengagedinthebusinessthenengagedinbytheCompany,within50milesofanyCompanyofficeorCompanysclientlocation.` 7` 7*7Theagreementalsoprovidesthat:` ` [i]tisthedesireandintentofthepartiesthattheprovisionsofthisSectionshallbeenforcedtothefullestextentpermissibleunderthelawsandpublicpoliciesappliedineachjurisdictioninwhichenforcementissought.Accordingly,ifanyparticularportionofthisSectionshallbeadjudicatedtobeinvalidorunenforceable,thisSectionshallbedeemedamendedtodeletetherefromtheportionthusadjudicatedtobeinvalidorunenforceable,suchdeletiontoapplyonlywithrespecttotheoperationofthisSectionintheparticularjurisdictioninwhichsuchadjudicationismade.` ;;`    ` VantagetaughtCrosshowtoperformhisdutiesasaphacoemulsificationtechnician.CrossspenthisfirstmonthofemploymentwithVantagein241.5hoursoftraining.ThistrainingprimarilyconsistedofobservingamoreseniorVantagetechnicianduringapproximately70cataractsurgeries.Crossalsowatchedvideosandreadmanuals.Duringthecourseofhisemployment,Crossattendedmonthlymeetingsandalsowenttoone 9/9  wetlabwhereheperformedacataractsurgeryonapigseye.MostofCrosstrainingpertainedtotwomodelsofamachinemanufacturedbyAlconandonemodelmanufacturedbyStorz.   ` AfterCrossinitialtraining,hebegantoprovideservicestohospitalswithoutthesupervisionofanotherVantagetechnician.Crossreliedonthedoctordiariestoascertainthepreferencesofthedoctorswithwhomheworked.Inadditiontothedoctordiaries,Crossreceivedscheduleswhichincludednotonlyhisownitinerary,butalsothenamesofthehospitalsanddoctorsforwhomhisfellowtechnicianswouldbeworking.Crosstestifiedthat,afterreferringtotheschedulestodeterminewhereandwithwhomhewastowork,hediscardedthescheduleswithouthavingascertainedtheidentitiesofanyotherVantagecustomers.CrosshadlimitedknowledgeofVantagespricingandothertermsofVantagescontractswithhospitals.   ` DuringhisemploymentwithVantage,Crossserviced49hospitalsinatleastsixstates.TwoofthehospitalsCrossservicedwereFortSandersLoudonandLakeway.Atfirst,Vantagedispatchedseveraldifferenttechnicianstoservicethesetwohospitals.Bythesummerof1996,however,CrosswastheVantagetechnicianinthemajorityofthesurgeriesperformedatthesetwohospitals,andhaddevelopedastrongrelationshipwithDr.Gollamudi.   ` Inthesummerof1996,VantageinformedCrossthatitwantedhimtoservicehospitalsinOhioratherTennessee.CrossandDr.GollamudibegantodiscussthepossibilityofCrossworkingasatechnicianforDr.GollamudiindependentofVantage, :|0: usinganAllerganPrestigemachinewhichDr.GollamudipreferredoverthemachinessuppliedbyVantage.VantagenevertrainedCrossonanAllerganPrestigemachine.   ` Aroundthistime,CrosslearnedfromDr.GollamudithatLaFollettewasexperiencingproblemswithitsphacoemulsificationmachinetothepointofhavingtopostponeandcancelsurgeries.TheOperatingRoomDirectoratLaFollettetestifiedthatCrossmetheronAugust13,1996,todiscusstheprovidingofmobileservices.CrossdidnotmentionthathewasaVantageemployee.OnAugust15,1996,CrossgaveVantagehistwoweeksnotice.CrossfaxedapricequotetoLaFolletteonAugust16,1996.OnAugust19,1996,Dr.Gollamudisecured$40,000fromabankandthenloanedthemoneytoCrosstofinancethestartupofCrossbusiness,SouthernSurgicalSupport.CrossusedmostofthemoneytopurchasearefurbishedAllerganPrestigemachinewhichheorderedonAugust29,1996,hislastdayasaVantageemployee.CrossreceivedthemachineonSeptember2,1996,andanAllerganrepresentative,inoneday,instructedhiminitsoperation.   ` CrossrenderedhisfirstservicethroughhisnewbusinessonSeptember10,1996,atLaFollette.WiththehelpofDr.Gollamudisinfluence,CrossbeganservicingLakewaysometimewithinthenextmonthandFortSandersLoudoninOctober,1996.InNovember,Dr.GollamudiintroducedCrosstoapartnerwhoperformedsurgeryatFortSandersSevierville.CrossbeganservicingFortSandersSeviervilleinJanuary,1997.   9.8    ` VantagefiledsuitonMay16,1997,allegingthatCross hadbreachedavalidandenforceablecovenantnottocompete.Thetrialcourt,findingthecovenantunreasonableandunenforceable,renderedjudgmentinfavorofCross.Vantagethenappealed.& H   X  2  II.StandardofReview    N 2 Inthisnonjurycase,ourreviewisdenovouponthe  record,withapresumptionofcorrectnessastothetrialcourtsfactualdeterminations,unlesstheevidencepreponderatesotherwise.Rule13(d),T.R.A.P.; UnionCarbideCorp.v.  Huddleston ,854S.W.2d87,91(Tenn.1993); Wrightv.Cityof t Knoxville ,898S.W.2d177,181(Tenn.1995).Thetrialcourts !@ conclusionsoflaw,however,areaccordednosuchpresumption. Campbellv.FloridaSteelCorp. ,919S.W.2d26,35(Tenn.1996); %  Presleyv.Bennett ,860S.W.2d857,859(Tenn.1993).'HXN &   (P" Ourdenovoreviewissubjecttothewellestablished L*$ principlethatthetrialcourtisinthebestpositiontoassessthecredibilityofthewitnesses;accordingly,suchdeterminationsareentitledtogreatweightonappeal. Massengalev.Massengale ,915S.W.2d818,819(Tenn.App.1995); 1&,  Bowmanv.Bowman ,836S.W.2d563,566(Tenn.App.1991). 2(.  4P*0 & d 7,L6+ 2   III.Analysis 7,2 |TT  'dL67TA.NonCompetitionCovenant 9/5 .UT 2 Covenantsnottocompete,becausetheyareinrestraint P  oftrade,aredisfavoredinTennessee. Hastyv.RentADriver,   Inc. ,671S.W.2d471,472(Tenn.1984).Assuch,theyare  x construedstrictlyinfavoroftheemployee. Id .However,when D therestrictionsarereasonableunderthecircumstances,suchcovenantsareenforceable. Id .Thefactorsthatarerelevantin    determiningwhetheracovenantnottocompeteisreasonableinclude theconsiderationsupportingtheagreements;thethreateneddangertotheemployerintheabsenceofsuchanagreement;theeconomichardshipimposedontheemployeebysuchacovenant;andwhetherornotsuchacovenantshouldbeinimicaltopublicinterest. AllrightAutoParks,Inc.v.Berry ,409 4 S.W.2d361,363(Tenn.1966).  \ Thefirstfactor,consideration,isnotanissueonappeal.Inbalancingtheotherthreefactors,athresholdquestioniswhethertheemployerhasalegitimatebusinessinterest,i.e.,onethatisproperlyprotectablebyanoncompetitioncovenant.See Hasty ,671S.W.2dat473. )$  2  2 Severalprinciplesguidethedeterminationofwhetheranemployerhasabusinessinterestproperlyprotectablebyanoncompetitioncovenant.Becauseanemployermaynotrestrainordinarycompetition,itmustshowtheexistenceofspecialfactsoverandaboveordinarycompetition. Id .Thesefactsmustbe b3)0 suchthatwithoutthecovenant,theemployeewouldgainanunfairadvantageinfuturecompetitionwiththeemployer. Id . 6,4 Considerationsindeterminingwhetheranemployeewouldhavesuchanunfairadvantageinclude(1)whethertheemployerprovidedthe R:08 employeewithspecializedtraining;(2)whethertheemployeeisgivenaccesstotradeorbusinesssecretsorotherconfidentialinformation;and(3)whethertheemployerscustomerstendtoassociatetheemployersbusinesswiththeemployeeduetotheemployeesrepeatedcontactswiththecustomersonbehalfoftheemployer. Id .Theseconsiderationsmayoperateindividuallyor \  intandemtogiverisetoaproperlyprotectablebusinessinterest.See,e.g., AmeriGasPropane,Inc.v.Crook ,844 $  F.Supp.379(M.D.Tenn.1993); FlyingColorsofNashville,Inc.   v.Keyt ,C/ANo.01A019103CH00088,1991WL153198(Tenn.App. l M.S.,filedAugust14,1991)  . 8  4   1.SpecializedTraining` `  < Anemployerdoesnothaveaprotectableinterestinthegeneralknowledgeandskillofanemployee. Hasty ,671S.W.2dat # 473.Thisisnotonlytrueofknowledgeandskillbroughtintotheemploymentrelationship,butalsotrueastothatacquiredduringtheemploymentrelationship,eveniftheemployeeobtainedsuchgeneralknowledgeandskillthroughexpensivetraining.See  *d & Hasty ,671S.W.2dat473( generalknowledgeandskillappertain l,"( exclusivelytotheemployee,evenifacquiredwithexpensivetrainingandthusdoesnotconstituteaprotectible[sic]interestoftheemployer). <3(0 Incontrast,anemployermayhaveaprotectableinterestintheuniqueknowledgeandskillthatanemployee 6D,4 receivesthroughspecialtrainingbyhisemployer,atleastwhensuchtrainingispresentalongwithotherfactorstendingtoshow 9/8 aprotectableinterest. Id ; Selox,Inc.v.Ford ,675S.W.2d474, P  476(Tenn.1984)( Alinemustbedrawnbetweenthegeneralskillsandknowledgeofthetradeandinformationthatispeculiartotheemployersbusiness.)(quotingRestatement(Second) t$ ofContracts188cmt.g(1981)).Seealso FlyingColorsof   Nashville ,1991WL153198at*5(holdingthattrainingin   specializedtechniquesandprocessesofpaintmixing,togetherwithaspecialrelationshipwiththeemployerscustomers,givesrisetoaproperlyprotectableinterest)  .    l   Thus,whetheranemployerhasaprotectableinterestinitsinvestmentintraininganemployeedependsonwhethertheskillacquiredasaresultofthattrainingissufficientlyspecialastomakeacompetinguseofitbytheemployeeunfair. "     #t NP 2.TradeSecretsandConfidentialInformation%i i  %  MXX    XXM 2 %i  %iOj iԌ̌ XXXX   2 Anemployerhasalegitimatebusinessinterestin   keepingitsformeremployeesfromusingtheformeremployerstradeorbusinesssecretsorotherconfidentialinformationincompetitionagainsttheformeremployer. Hasty ,671S.W.2dat   473.Atradesecretisdefinedasanysecret formula,process,pattern,deviceorcompilationofinformationthatisusedinonesbusinessandwhichgiveshimanopportunitytoobtainanadvantageovercompetitorswhodonotuseit. Hickory ~ Specialties,Inc.v.B&LLabs.,Inc. ,592S.W.2d583,586 J (Tenn.App.1979)(quoting AllisChalmersMfg.Co.v.Continental f Aviation&EnggCorp. ,255F.Supp.645,653(E.D.Mich.1966)). 2 Thesubjectmatterofatradesecretmustbesecretandnotwellknownoreasilyascertainable. HickorySpecialties ,592S.W.2d "Z at587.̀Whatconstitutes confidentialinformationissomewhatlessclear.In HeyerJordan&Assocs.,Inc.v.Jordan ,801 z)*$ S.W.2d814(Tenn.App.1990),weheldthattheidentitiesoftheemployerscustomersdidnotamountto confidentialbusinessinformationwithinthemeaningoftheemploymentagreementbecausesuchinformationwasgenerallyavailableinthetrade.Wereasonedthat confidentialinformationisanalogousto tradesecretandthat,becausecustomeridentitiesarenotsecret,theycannotbeconsideredconfidential.Seealso Amarr N5*2 Co.v.Depew ,C/ANo.03A019511CH00412,1996WL600330,*4*5 7,4 (Tenn.App.W.S.,filedOctober16,1996)(holdingthatcustomerlists,customercreditinformation,pricinginformation,and :B08 profitandlossstatementsdidnotconstituteconfidentialinformationbecausesuchinformationiseasilyavailablefromsourcesotherthantheemployer). T    3.SpecialCustomerRelationshipss  sAnemployermayalsohavealegitimateprotectableinterestintherelationshipsbetweenitsemployeesanditscustomers.See Hasty ,671S.W.2dat473.Itisoftenthecase `  thatthecustomerassociatestheemployersbusinesswiththeemployeeduetotheemployeesrepeatedcontactswiththecustomer.Theemployeeinessencebecomes thefaceoftheemployer.Thisrelationshipisbasedontheemployersgoodwill.Theemployeesroleinthisrelationshipismerelythatoftheemployersagent.Inthisrole,theemployeeismadeprivytocertaininformationthatispersonal,ifnottechnicallyconfidential.Becausethisrelationshiparisesoutoftheemployersgoodwill,theemployerhasalegitimateinterestinkeepingtheemployeefromusingthisrelationship,ortheinformationthatflowsthroughit,forhisownbenefit.Thisisespeciallytrueifthisspecialrelationshipexistsalongwiththeelementsofconfidentialinformationand/orspecializedtraining.Forillustrationsofthisprinciple,see AmeriGas 8/$, Propane,Inc.v.Crook ,844F.Supp.379,386(M.D.Tenn.1993);  1&. Ramseyv.MutualSupplyCo. ,427S.W.2d849,852(Tenn.App. 2(0 1968); FederatedMut.ImplementandHardwareIns.Co.v. 4L*2 Anderson ,351S.W.2d411,415(Tenn.App.1961); ArkansasDailies, h6,4 Inc.v.Dan ,260S.W.2d200,20405(Tenn.App.1953); Powellv. 48-6 McDonnellIns.,Inc. ,C/ANo.02A019608CH00176,1997WL :/8 589232,*5(Tenn.App.W.S.,filedSeptember24,1997); Flying P  ColorsofNashville,Inc.v.Keyt ,C/ANo.01A019103CH00088,   1991WL153198,*5(Tenn.App.M.S.,filedAugust14,1991). D    4.Applicationz z& h Vantagearguesonappealthatithasalegitimatebusinessinterestinalloftheabovecategories,i.e.,specializedtraining,confidentialinformation,andspecialcustomerrelationships.ThetrialcourtconcludedthatCrosstrainingwas notsouniqueorspecializedastojustifyacovenantnottocompeteforitsprotection....ItalsoheldthatVantagehadnolegitimatebusinessinterestinthecustomerlists,pricinglevels,anddoctordiariesbecausesuchinformationdoesnotconstituteconfidentialinformation.Finally,thetrialcourtfoundthatVantagedoesnothaveaprotectableinterestintherelationshiparisingoutofCrossdirectandrepeatedcontactswithVantagescustomersbecausethehospitalsareprimarilyconcernedwithqualityandpriceratherthandevelopingrelationships.'h4{ ,!(   Whiletherelevantfactorsmentionedabovemusteachbeanalyzedinisolation,theymustalsobeanalyzedintandem.Whenthefactsoftheinstantcaseareanalyzedinthelattermanner,wefindandholdthatVantagehasestablishedalegitimatebusinessinterestthatcanbeproperlyprotectedbyacovenantnottocompete. 7d-6 Crossfirstmonthofemploymentwasdevotedtotraining.Hisfirst241.5hoursonthejobwereprimarilyspent  ;0: inobservationofapproximately70surgeries.Aftertheinitialtrainingperiodended,heattendedmonthlymeetings.Inadditiontothistraining,therelationshipsbetweenVantageandthehospitalsandsurgeonswereinitiatedbyVantageandwerebuiltonthefoundationofVantagesgoodwill.AnycontributionofCrosstothedevelopmentandsustenanceoftheserelationshipswasaccomplishedinCrossroleasanagentofVantage.Inperformanceofthisrole,Crosswasmadeprivytosurgeonpreferences.HehadadegreeofknowledgeofVantagesothercustomersandthepricesitchargedforCrossservices.Additionally,itwasinthisroleasVantagetechnicianthatCrossrelationshipwithDr.Gollamudiwasinitiatedanddeveloped.Thisrelationship,aswellastheinformationthatflowedthroughit,givesCrossanunfairadvantageincompetitionagainsthisformeremployerbecauseitcomesattheexpenseofhisformeremployer.WhenthisspecialrelationshipiscoupledwiththetrainingCrossreceivedfromVantageandtheconfidentialinformationhereceivedwhileinitsemploy,thetotalityofallofthisamountstoalegitimatebusinessinterestproperlyprotectablebyacovenantnottocompete.T 9  1      ׀Tothe *& extentthetrialcourtfoundotherwise,wefindandholdthattheevidencepreponderatesagainstsuchafinding. /$, #  MXX; M    ;XX; XXX;X1<'0t&#r  #rL φԌ 1<'. Ќ XXXXXXXX   FindingthatVantagehasestablishedaprotectable T3)0 interest,however,doesnotendourinquiry.Accordingtothe Allright factors,thethreateneddangertoVantagesprotectable   interestintheabsenceofanoncompetitioncovenantmustbebalancedagainsttheeconomichardshipimposedonCrossbysuchacovenant.Thepublicinterestmustalsobeconsidered. Allright   AutoParks,Inc.v.Berry ,409S.W.2d361,363(Tenn.1966).    h  Thetrialcourt,apparentlyrelyingonitspreviousfindingsoffact,foundthat [t]heeconomichardshipimposeduponCrossbysuchacovenantgreatlyoutweighsthethreateneddangertoVantageintheabsenceofsuchanagreement.Forthereasonsarticulatedabove,wedisagree.Ifthecovenantisnotenforced,VantagestandstoloseitsinvestmentintrainingCrossanditsinvestmentinthedevelopmentofcustomerrelationshipsaswellastheeffortexpendedingatheringinformationconcerningsurgeonpreferences.Ifthecovenantisenforced,Crossmerelylosesthatwhichdoesnotbelongtohim. '"   2    ` Therelevantconsiderationsbearingonthepublicinterestdonotprecludeenforcementofthenoncompetitioncovenant.Anyrestraintoncompetitionhasthepotentialtoincreasethecostofwhatarealreadyexpensivehealthcareservices.Ontheotherhand,notenforcingthecovenantwouldallowCrosstounfairlyusethebenefitsbestoweduponhimbyhisemployerandmayresultinadisincentivetoVantagetoproperlytrainandinformitsemployees.Accordingly,wefindthatthepublicinterestconsiderationsdonotmilitateagainstenforcementofthecovenant.Weconcludethatthethreatened dangertoVantageintheabsenceofsuchenforcementoutweighs 90/8 theeconomichardshipimposeduponCrossbyenforcementofthenoncompetitioncovenant. 2 Tobeenforceable,acovenantnottocompetemustclearonefinalhurdle.Thescopeofacovenantnottocompetemustbereasonableinthat thetimeandterritoriallimitsinvolvedmustbenogreaterthanisnecessarytoprotectthebusinessinterestsoftheemployer. AllrightAutoParks ,409S.W.2dat363.If h  thescopeofthecovenantisreasonableaswritten,itwillbeenforcedaswritten.Ifthescopeisunnecessarilyburdensometotheemployee,however,itwillbeenforcedonly totheextentthat[itis]reasonablynecessarytoprotecttheemployersinterestwithoutimposingunduehardshipontheemployeewhenthepublicinterestisnotadverselyaffected. Central  @ AdjustmentBureau,Inc.v.Ingram ,678S.W.2d28,37(Tenn.1984) \"  (quotinginpart Ehlersv.IowaWarehouseCo. ,188N.W.2d368, ($ 370(Iowa1971)).Hence,acourtmaymodifyanunreasonablecovenantsoastorenderitreasonable.Toprotectagainstemployersdraftingoverlybroadlanguagesecureintheknowledgethatthesolesanctionwouldbemodificationtothemaximumextentallowed,courtswillholdtheentirecovenantinvalidifcredibleevidencesupportsafindingthatthecovenantisdeliberatelyunreasonableandoppressive. CentralAdjustment /%, Bureau ,678S.W.2dat37.Withrespecttoterritorial 1x'. limitations,covenantsthatembraceanareainwhichtheemployeeneverperformedservicesareunreasonableunlesstheemployeepossessesknowledgeoftheemployerstradesecrets. Allright 6,4 AutoParks ,409S.W.2dat364. 8h.6  :408 Thecovenantatissueintheinstantcaseisratherinartfullydrawn.ItessentiallyprohibitsCrossfromcompetingwithVantageforthreeyears within50milesofanyCompanyofficeorCompanysclientlocation.Vantagesrationaleforthe50milerestrictionisthatsurgeonsoftenservenumeroushospitalswithin50milesofeachother,and,becausesurgeonsaresoinfluentialinthehospitalschoiceofmobileserviceprovider,aprovidersrelationshipwithasurgeoncantranslateintorelationshipswithsurroundinghospitals. \  Wefindthe50milerestrictiontobeareasonablegeographicalscopewithrespecttothelocationsofVantagescustomerhospitalsinwhichCrossservedastechnicianforVantage.Vantagesassertedrationale,however,doesnotexplaintheneedforprotectionofa50mileareasurroundingVantagesoffices.NordoesitexplaintheneedforprotectioninareasnearhospitalsinwhichCrossneverperformedservices.TheevidencedoesnotsuggestthatVantagedeliberatelydraftedthecovenanttobeunreasonableoroppressive.Accordingly,wemodifythecovenanttoprohibitCrossfromcompetingwithVantagewithin50milesofanyVantagecustomerlocationinwhichCrossperformedserviceswhileaVantagetechnician. /$, Thereareatleasttwootherproblemswiththesubjectcovenant.First,itdoesnotexpresslystatewhether within50milesisintendedtorefertoaradiusordrivingdistance.Second,thecovenantdoesnotstatewhetherthe CompanysclientlocationreferstohospitalswhichwereatonetimeclientsorwhichwereclientsatthetimeofCrosstermination.Becausetheagreementisambiguous,andbecausewearetoconstrue :|0: covenantsnottocompetefavorablytotheemployee,wefindandholdthattheareaofrestrictionis50milesasdeterminedbytheshortestdrivingdistance.Additionally,weholdthatthecovenantappliesonlytothosehospitalsinwhichVantagewasregularlyprovidingservicesatthetimeofCrosstermination. \  Withrespecttotheperiodofrestriction,weholdthatthreeyearsisreasonable.See Matthewsv.Barnes ,293S.W.993,   993,996(Tenn.1927)(fiveyearcovenantheldreasonable);    Ramseyv.MutualSupplyCo. ,427S.W.2d849,85253(Tenn.App. |, 1968)(fiveyearcovenantheldreasonable); ArkansasDailies, H Inc.v.Dan ,260S.W.2d200,205(Tenn.App.1953)(threeyear  covenantheldreasonable);   MikeGlynn&Son,Inc.v.Schang ,1990  WL7449,*1,*4(Tenn.App.W.S.,filedFebruary5,1990)(threeyearcovenantheldreasonable).   X"  $ Insum,weholdthefollowing:(1)thatVantagehasestablishedthatithasalegitimate,protectableinterest;(2)thatthethreateneddangertothisinterestintheabsenceofanoncompetitioncovenantoutweighstheeconomichardshipimposedonCrossresultingfromenforcementofthecovenant;(3)thatthethreeyeartimeperiodforwhichCrossisprohibitedfromcompetingwithVantageisreasonable;and(4)thatthegeographicalscopeofthecovenantismodifiedsothatCrossisprohibitedfromcompetingwithVantagewithin50miles,shortestdrivingdistance,ofanyhospitalinwhichVantagewasregularlyprovidingservicesatthetimeofCrosstermination,butonlywithrespecttothosehospitalsinwhichCrossperformedserviceswhileaVantagetechnician. 9p/8 Ї K   ` Onremand,thetrialcourtmustdetermine,accordingtotheparameterswehaveoutlinedabove,whetherandtowhatextentCrosshasviolatedhisnoncompetitioncovenant.IfCrosshasviolatedhiscovenant,thetrialcourtmustdeterminetheextentofinjunctivereliefand/ordamagestowhichVantageisentitled. \    B.MotiontoAmendtoConformtotheEvidence X          ` ThesecondissueVantageraisesonappealiswhether l  thetrialcourterredindenyingVantagesmotiontoamenditspleadingstoconformtotheevidence.OnMay16,1997,Vantagefiledsuitallegingbreachofthecovenantnottocompete.Vantagedidnotassertbreachofdutyofloyaltyasacauseofaction.OnJune30,1998,thepartiesproceededtothefirstdayoftrial.Vantageexamined,andCrosscrossexamined,fourwitnesses.ThecourtthenadjourneduntilJuly13,1998.OnJuly7,1998,Vantagefiledamotiontoamendthepleadingstoconformtotheevidenceseekingtoaddabreachofdutyofloyaltycauseofaction.ThecourtheardthemotiononJuly13,1998,anddeniedit,findingthattheissuehadnotbeentriedbyexpressorimpliedconsentandthatanamendmentatthattimewouldresultinprejudicetoCross.   $/$, 8 l`    ` Indeterminingwhethertograntordenyamotiontoamendthepleadingstoconformtotheevidence+  +ԫ6   ? 9  2      , themost |2,(0 importantquestioniswhetherthenewissuesweretriedbythepartiesexpressorimpliedconsentandwhetherthedefendantwouldbeprejudicedbytheimpliedamendment,i.e.,whetherhehadafairopportunitytodefendandwhetherhecouldofferanyadditionalevidenceifthecaseweretoberetriedonadifferenttheory. ZackCheekBuilders,Inc.v.McLeod ,597S.W.2d888, \  891(Tenn.1980)(quoting BrowningDebentureHoldersComm.v. x(  DasaCorp. ,560F.2d1078,1086(2dCir.1977).Presentationof D  evidencethatisrelevanttobothapledissueandanonpledissuedoesnotestablishtrialofthenonpledissuebyimpliedconsent. Hillerv.Hailey ,915S.W.2d800,805(Tenn.App.1995). h Whethertheissuehasbeentriedbyimpliedconsentisadecisionrestingwithinthesounddiscretionofthetrialcourt,and,assuch,itcannotbedisturbedonappealabsentanabuseofdiscretion. ZackCheekBuilders ,597S.W.2dat891. 8"  $      ` Here,Vantageseekstoamendthepleadingstoincludeabreachofdutyofloyaltyclaimbasedoncertainevidenceelicitedonthefirstdayoftrial.VantageassertsthatitdidnotlearnuntilthefirstdayoftrialthatCrosspersonallysolicitedLaFollettetwodaysbeforegivinghisnoticeofterminationtoVantage.Vantagecontendsthatthisevidenceisrelevantonlytoabreachofdutyofloyaltyclaim.ItalsoassertsthatthisissuewastriedbyimpliedconsentbecauseCrossattorneyexaminedtwowitnessesregardingthetimingofCrosssolicitationofLaFolletteforhimself.Crossresponds 4l*2 withtheargumentthatthefactssurroundingthetimingofhispersonalsolicitationofclientsisrelevanttothebreachofthenoncompetitioncovenant,especiallyasitrelatestothecalculationofdamagesshouldhebefoundtobeinviolationofthecovenant.Thus,Crossarguesthathedidnotexpresslyorimpliedlytrythebreachofdutyofloyaltyclaim,andthattheamendmentafterwitnesseshavebeendismissedwouldbeprejudicialtohiscase. `     ` Ontheseconddayoftrial,afterdenialofthemotiontoamend,counselforVantagequestionedCrossaboutwhenCrossestablishedhisownbusiness.Inresponsetoanobjectionbasedonrelevancy,i.e.,thatthequestionwasoutsidethescopeof ` thepleadings,counselforVantagestatedthat [i]fthegentlemanisoutcompetingdirectlywithhisemployerduringtheactualemploymentwiththeemployer,thatscertainlyrelevanttothefactsofthiscase.WeagreewithCrossandVantagescounselthattheevidencesurroundingthetimingofCrosssolicitationofLaFolletteisrelevanttotheallegedviolationofthenoncompetitioncovenant.Moreover,bythetimethemotionwasfiled,fourwitnesseshadbeenexaminedanddismissed.GrantingthemotionwouldhaveresultedinCrossnotbeinggivenfairnoticeoranopportunitytopresentevidencerelevanttoacauseofactionallegingbreachofdutyofloyalty.Accordingly,wefindthatthetrialcourtdidnotabuseitsdiscretionindenyingVantagesmotiontoamenditspleadingstoconformtotheevidence. 70-6    2 K  C.ChoiceofLaw ,9.8     ;0:  2 CrossraisesasanissueonappealwhetherthetrialcourterredinapplyingTennesseelawratherthanIllinoislawindeterminingtheenforceabilityofthecovenantnottocompete.Thebasisforthetrialcourtsdecisionregardingchoiceoflawisparagraph2(b)oftheagreementnottocompetesignedbyCross.Thisparagraphprovidesasfollows: X  ` `  [i]tisthedesireandintentofthepartiesthattheprovisionsofthisSectionshallbeenforcedtothefullestextentpermissibleunderthelawsandpublicpoliciesappliedineachjurisdictioninwhichenforcementissought.Accordingly,ifanyparticularportionofthisSectionshallbeadjudicatedtobeinvalidorunenforceable,thisSectionshallbedeemedamendedtodeletetherefromtheportionthusadjudicatedtobeinvalidorunenforceable,suchdeletiontoapplyonlywithrespecttotheoperationofthisSectionintheparticularjurisdictioninwhichsuchadjudicationismade. 2` J` <X j  2 Thegoalofcontractinterpretationistoascertaintheintentofthepartiesaccordingtotheusual,natural,andordinarymeaningofthewordsusedbytheparties. Guilianov.  '" Cleo,Inc. ,995S.W.2d88,95(Tenn.1999).Anyambiguityisto ($ beconstruedagainstthedrafter. Spiegelv.Thomas,Mann& *h & Smith,P.C. ,811S.W.2d528,531(Tenn.1991).Contractsmust ,4"( beconstrued,asfarasisreasonable,soastogiveeffecttoeveryterm. Wilsonv.Moore ,929S.W.2d367,373(Tenn.App. /%, 1996).Interpretationofacontract,beingamatteroflaw,issubjecttodenovoreviewwithnopresumptionofcorrectness. t3$)0  Guilianov.Cleo ,995S.W.2d88,95(Tenn.1999); Campbellv. ,5*2 FloridaSteelCorp. ,919S.W.2d26,35(Tenn.1996); Presleyv. 6,4 Bennett ,860S.W.2d857,859(Tenn.1993). 8t.6  :@08 Tennesseefollowstheruleoflexlocicontractus. P  Thisruleprovidesthatacontractispresumedtobegovernedbythelawofthejurisdictioninwhichitwasexecutedabsentacontraryintent. OhioCas.Ins.Co.v.TravelersIndem.Co. ,493 ` S.W.2d465,467(Tenn.1973).   Ifthepartiesmanifestanintenttoinsteadapplythelawsofanotherjurisdiction,thenthatintentwillbehonoredprovidedcertainrequirementsaremet.Thechoiceoflawprovisionmustbeexecutedingoodfaith. GoodwinBros.Leasing, 8 Inc.v.H&BInc. ,597S.W.2d303,306(Tenn.1980).The T jurisdictionwhoselawischosenmustbearamaterialconnectiontothetransaction. Id .Thebasisforthechoiceofanother | jurisdictionslawmustbereasonableandnotmerelyashamorsubterfuge. Id .Finally,thepartieschoiceofanother D" jurisdictionslawmustnotbe contrarytoafundamentalpolicyofastatehaving[a]materiallygreaterinterestandwhoselawwouldotherwisegovern. Id ,n.2(citingRestatement h'" (Second)ofConflictofLaws187(2)(1971)). 4)$  * & InaFebruary13,1998,memorandumopinionrelatingtothisissue,thetrialcourtmadethefollowingfindingsoffact:(1)bothpartiesexecutedtheagreementingoodfaith;(2)Tennesseehadadirectandrelevantconnectionwiththetransactioninquestion;(3)therewasnoevidenceofshamorsubterfuge;and(4)therewasnoevidencethatIllinoishadamateriallygreaterinterest.Thetrialcourtalsoconcluded,asamatteroflaw,thattheprovisionwasbothachoiceoflawclauseandaseparabilityclauseandthatthepartiesintendedto 9/8 NP N  N  begovernedbythelawsoftheStateofTennesseeintheeventapartysoughtenforcementofthecontractinthisstate.Basedonthisconclusionanditsfindingsoffact,thetrialcourtheldthatTennesseelawappliedtotheanalysisofthecovenantnottocompete.t$ \ 2  2 CrossarguesonappealthatthetrialcourterredinapplyingTennesseeratherthanIllinoislaw.Hecontendsthattheprovisionissolelyaseparabilityprovisionbecauseitprovidesformodificationintheeventthatanyportionisadjudicatedinvalidorunenforceable.Additionally,Crossnotesthattheprovisiondoesnotrefertoaparticularforeignjurisdiction,butratherreferstothelawsof eachjurisdictioninwhichenforcementissought.Insodoing,heargues,theprovisiondoesnotpromotethegoalofcertainty,predictabilityanduniformitybecauseitnecessarilymutatesaccordingtothejurisdictioninwhichVantageseekstoenforcetheagreement.Vantagerespondsthatthefirstsentenceoftheprovisionisachoiceoflawclauseandthatignoringitwouldamounttoafindingthatitismeaningless,aresultthatoffendstheestablishedrulethatcontractsmustbeconstrued,asfarasisreasonable,soastogiveeffecttoeveryterm. 0%, Wefindthatthetrialcourtdidnotabuseitsdiscretioninfindingthatthecontractwasexecutedingoodfaith,thatTennesseehadareasonablerelationtothetransaction,andthattherewasnoevidenceofimproperpurposeorthatIllinoishadamateriallygreaterinterestthanTennessee.Moreover,weagreethattheprovisionisbotha :/8 choiceoflawclauseandaseparabilityclause.Toconstruethefirstsentenceofparagraph2(b)oftheagreementasanythingotherthanachoiceoflawclausewouldbetoignoretheclearintentofthepartiesandthusrenderthesentencemeaningless.Thattheclause,intandemwiththeseparabilityclause,mightresultinadifferentoutcomedependingonthejurisdictioninwhichitisenforcedisnotanimpedimenttoourdecision.Thisissobecauseourexerciseofjurisdictionoverthismatterisproper.OurdecisionisentitledtofullfaithandcrediteventhoughitaffectstherightsandobligationsofthepartieswithrespecttoareasoutsideofTennessee.Hence,asbetweenVantageandMarkCross,themattermaynotberelitigatedinanotherjurisdiction,andassuch,thechoiceoflawprovisiondoesnotoffendthegoalofcertainty,predictabilityanduniformity.WethereforeholdthattheprovisionisavalidchoiceoflawprovisionandthatthetrialcourtwascorrectinapplyingTennessee,ratherthanIllinois,law. &l" 0)h( 2   IV.Conclusion 0)$   2 Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisreversedinpart,affirmedinpartandremandedforfurtherdeterminationsconsistentwiththisopinion.Exercisingourdiscretion,wetaxthecostsonappealhalftoeachparty. 3X)0  T5+2     `     h     _________________________ 7,4    `     h     CharlesD.Susano,Jr.J.& F  2CONCUR:_________________________HoustonM.Goddard,P.J.򀀀(NotParticipating) `  WilliamH.Inman,Sr.J.  2'FP K