Call/WhatsApp: +1 914 416 5343

Goldsoll v Goldman [1915] 1 Ch. 292 (CA)

Goldsoll v Goldman [1915] 1 Ch. 292 (CA)
D sold his business to P and covenanted that:

‘… he would not for the period of two years ‘either solely or jointly with or as agent or employee for any other person or persons or company directly or indirectly carry on or be engaged concerned or interested in or render services (gratuitously or otherwise) to the business of a vendor of or dealer in real or imitation jewellery in the county of London or any part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the Isle of Man or in France, the United States, Russia, or Spain, or within twenty-five miles of Potsdamerstrasse, Berlin, or St. Stefans Kirche, Vienna.’

Attwood v Lamont [1920] 3 KB 571 (CA)

‘either on his own account or on that of any wife of his or in partnership with or as assistant, servant, or agent to any other person, persons or company carry on or be in any way directly or indirectly concerned in any of the following trades or businesses; that is to say, the trade or business of a tailor, dressmaker, general draper, milliner, hatter, haberdasher, gentlemen’s, ladies’ or children’s outfitter at any place within a radius of ten miles of” Kidderminster.’

Lucas v Mitchell [1974] Ch 129 (CA)

cl 16 provided that he should not for one year after the determination of his employment

‘within the allocated districts as existing at the termination of his employment deal in any goods similar to or capable of being used in place of the allocated articles or solicit orders for or supply any such goods to any person firm or company carrying on business within the allocated districts as existing at the termination of his employment… to whom the company has supplied any of the allocated articles during the 12 months preceding such determination.’

Leave a Reply