Konecranes Enterprise Agreement

[2] Machado Miller v. Mersereau &Shannon, LLP, 180 Or.App. 586, 43 p.3d 1207 (2002), is no different. The applicant filed a fault complaint and asserted that her lawyer erred in a previous action in Oregon Federal Court by not arguing in favour of the application of California law. The non-compete clause established that Oregon law must be enforced. The agreement was enforceable under Oregon law, but not under California law. The Court of Appeals predicted that the Federal Court would have applied Oregon law and not California law. Although this special employee was deployed to California, Oregon was very interested in enforcing its laws. In addition, the employer was an Oregon company, and the employee had significant contacts with Oregon. The complainant did not allege that Sinclair had incited someone by unauthorized act to break a contract with the complainant. On the contrary, the applicant claims that Sinclair is not at all competing for business because of non-competition. Even if an agreement is considered valid (and I doubt that this is the trap), it is doubtful whether the breach of a non-competition clause is itself an unlawful act.

See Georgetown Realty v. . . .