Question

Alex worked as a programmer for the GPS device and phone application known as MyWaze. He signed a covenant not to compete with MyWaze. However, when he received an offer by Google to start an innovative GPS Google phone application, he left his job at MyWaze. MyWaze sued Alex for breaching his contract and the covenant not to compete. The court ruled in favor of MyWaze.

But what if the facts of the case were different? Select each set of facts below that could change the outcome of the court’s decision.

A. The covenant to not compete was created in the state of California.

B. The court found that Alex had signed the covenant not to compete in an adhesion contract. That is, upon being hired, Alex was forced to either sign or be immediately fired from MyWaze.

C. Less than one week passed during the time that Alex quit his job at MyWaze and went to work for Google, and according to the covenant to not compete, employees of MyWaze had to wait at least 6 weeks before working for a potential competitor.

D. Rather than going to work on creating a GPS Application for Google, Alex was hired to be a programmer for Google’s e-mail system.

Answer 1

B, D

Step-by-step explanation:

1. Alex may be favoured in court if it was proven that Alex had signed the covenant not to compete in by force or else he would have been immediately fired from MyWaze. Then he may likely gain victory.

2. The second scenario, if Alex was involved in job at Google that wasn't going to compete with MyWaze; that is rather than going to work on creating a GPS Application for Google, Alex was hired to be a programmer for Google’s e-mail system. Since the email system does not have any competition with a GPS app he may be favoured.