- 17 -
Moreover, the existence of a consulting contract does not negate
the need for a covenant: The purchaser could abrogate the
contract for instance, or be terminated for cause. See Peterson
Mach. Tool, Inc. v. Commissioner, 79 T.C. 72, 85 (1982) (holding
that an employment contract of a covenantor for the duration of
the covenant not to compete is entitled to some weight, but is
not determinative).
Mr. Langdon's primary reason for selling was not to retire
but to avoid negotiating with the union once again. Since no
other distributor in his region was unionized, that factor would
not have prevented him from reentering the business. Therefore,
the factor of the seller's intention to compete may slightly
favor respondent, but only slightly.
(c) The seller's economic resources. After the sale, Mr.
Langdon had ample economic resources to either start from scratch
or buy an existing business.
(d) Potential damage to the buyer. If Mr. Langdon had
competed with Bravo, he could have greatly harmed the company.
Because of his long personal friendships with customers, they
certainly would have redirected a portion of their business to
him. However, because of the limited brand names available from
Skaar or Budweiser, it is probable that BDC's customers would
have continued to purchase from Bravo as well. Mr. Langdon might
also have been able to attract some of his former employees,
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011