Nor does the cause of enrichment exist in our case, since it has not been proven that the firm acted illegally, nor has improper enrichment been established. In fact, the cause of action was almost completely abandoned by a bonus company at the summation stage. And even if it turns out that enrichment was unlawfully established, the restitution remedy is unjust in the circumstances of the case. In addition, the existence of any damage was not proven, and no causal connection was proven between the acts attributed to the firm and the damage claimed to have been caused to the bonus company.
- Against the background of all this, it was argued that the counterclaim should be dismissed insofar as it is directed at the Weinberger firm, andthat the counter-plaintiff should be charged with costs.
- So far the corridor and from here to the lounge.
Discussion and Decision
- Above the field of the many disputes between the parties are two clouds - one in principle and the other individual. In principle, it is concerned with the question of whether the restrictions on competition and secrecy imposed by the company are lawful. Shouldthey be enforced, or do they contradict public policy? The individual is concerned with the consideration that the parties must make between them. And the clouds before us are covered with each other. After all, if there is validity to the limitation clauses, they will have implications for the calculation, and for the practical result of the litigation.
- I will preface the beginning and note that I have found that the law of the non-compete clause found in the agreement should be disqualified. Bonus Company has not been able to establish a trade secret worthy of protection inherent in its activity. It has not been able to show that the plaintiff was granted special training, or that he was given special consideration for the restrictions imposed on him by the agreement. The scope of the stipulation is sweeping and broad, and cannot stand, and this is not the case in which the court must draw a less sweeping alternative stipulation for the parties.
Subsequently, the counter-plaintiff was unable to show that Mr. Zaruk acted improperly vis-à-vis local authorities and water corporations after the termination of the engagement with him. It has not been proven that there is an improper solicitation on the part of employees to move and work with him and with the law firm. All of this is sufficient to lead to the dismissal of the counterclaim.