You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

BJM & Associates, Inc. v. Norrell Services, Inc.

Citations: 855 F. Supp. 1481; 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7625; 1994 WL 241494Docket: Civ. A. No. 92-079

Court: District Court, E.D. Kentucky; May 3, 1994; Federal District Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

In the case between BJM Associates, Inc. and Barbara Jane Moores against Norrell Services, Inc., BJM sought a declaratory judgment to address their rights under a License Agreement, claiming Norrell's breach of contract. The allegations included exclusion from a Bonus Commission Program, withdrawal of support services, and redefinition of Management Services that infringed on BJM's protected territory. BJM argued these actions constituted discrimination, breach of fiduciary duty, and anticipatory breach, necessitating rescission of the agreement. The court found Norrell materially breached the contract by altering service definitions to favor its subsidiary, Tascor, and compete directly in BJM's area, thus violating the Agreement's terms. Norrell's counterclaim for unpaid liquidation fees was dismissed after BJM resolved the outstanding balance. Additionally, the court ruled the restrictive covenants in the agreement unenforceable due to their overreaching constraints. Consequently, the court rescinded the License Agreement and dismissed Norrell's requests for enforcement of non-compete provisions. The judgment permits both parties to compete independently, finalizing the case as appealable.

Legal Issues Addressed

Bonus Commission Program and Discrimination Claims

Application: BJM's claim of discrimination for exclusion from the Bonus Commission Program was dismissed as meritless, as the court found BJM was not similarly situated to other franchisees.

Reasoning: BJM's claim of discrimination regarding its exclusion from the Bonus Commission Program from April to December 1991 has been dismissed as meritless.

Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Anticipatory Breach of Contract

Application: BJM amended its complaint to include claims for breach of fiduciary duty and anticipatory breach of contract, asserting Norrell's bad faith actions warranted rescission of the Agreement.

Reasoning: BJM's Amended Complaint added claims for breach of fiduciary duty and anticipatory breach of contract, seeking rescission of the Agreement due to Norrell's alleged violations and bad faith.

Declaratory Judgment and Breach of Contract

Application: Plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment regarding their rights under a License Agreement, alleging Norrell's breach of contract and seeking rescission due to multiple alleged violations.

Reasoning: Plaintiffs BJM Associates, Inc. (BJM) and Barbara Jane Moores initiated a declaratory judgment action against Defendant Norrell Services, Inc. regarding their rights under a License Agreement established on July 15, 1977.

Liquidation Fees and Material Breach

Application: Norrell's counterclaim regarding unpaid liquidation fees was rendered moot as BJM settled the discrepancy, and the court found no material breach on BJM's part.

Reasoning: BJM remedied any potential breach by paying Norrell $12,200, which resolved the issue, rendering Norrell's counterclaim for liquidation fees moot.

Material Breach and Rescission of Contract

Application: The court found Norrell materially breached the Agreement by redefining services to exclude BJM, leading to a rescission of the contract.

Reasoning: The court found that Norrell materially breached the Agreement, entitling BJM to seek relief. Under Georgia law, such a substantial breach may warrant rescission of the contract.

Restrictive Covenants and Enforceability

Application: The court ruled the restrictive covenants in the License Agreement unenforceable due to their unreasonable scope, prohibiting competition 'in any capacity.'

Reasoning: The restrictive covenant in question is deemed unreasonable as it imposes excessive limitations on the defendant, exceeding what is necessary to protect the plaintiff.