- 13 -
accurately valued at $76,000, CPC, and not petitioner, must have
promised not to compete. Petitioners' contention that the cov-
enant not to compete had little or no value flies in the face of
the parties' stipulation that "the $76,000 value placed upon the
covenant not to compete in the purchase contract was an accurate
value of the covenant." On the present record, petitioners have
failed to show why they should be relieved of that stipulation.
See Rule 91(e). As for their contention that petitioner's inten-
tion to retire and his actual retirement at the time the purchase
contract was executed would have made any agreement by him not to
compete of little or no value, petitioners have failed to prove
that petitioner was certain that he wanted to retire or that he
would remain retired. In fact, the option to repurchase con-
tained in the purchase contract recited that petitioner was "not
* * * entirely sure" that he wanted to retire. Petitioner also
testified that it was his son, Donald C. Chiappetti, who insisted
that petitioner execute the covenant not to compete in his in-
dividual capacity, presumably because of his son's concern about
future competition from his father. Based on the instant record,
we have no basis for finding that the covenant not to compete,
which by its terms binds only petitioner, and not CPC, should
have been valued at some amount other than the $76,000 that
petitioner, CPC, and Donald C. Chiappetti allocated to it in the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011