This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P operates a beauty and barbershop supply business that was purchased from Fred F. Foster in 1988. D had worked as a sales agent for Foster since 1979. D had signed an agreement stipulating that if his employment with Foster were to terminate for any reason, he would not work as a sales agent for manufacturers of beauty and barbershop supplies in a twelve-state area of the midwest for a period of one year. On the sale to P, D sought to clarify the terms of his employment under the company's new management. They executed a written contract describing D's sales territory and commission arrangement on January 6, 1989. The contract contained no noncompete agreement and made no mention of the agreement D previously had entered into with Foster. P previously had rejected an integration clause proposed by D, which stated that the contract represented the sole and complete agreement between the parties. D submitted his resignation and then organized his own beauty and barbershop supply business and began soliciting trade from customers of P in his former territory. P sought injunctive relief against to enforce the non-compete agreement D had signed with Foster in 1979. The court entered a TRO conditioned on P's posting a $5,000.00 bond, granting the relief P sought for the period from May 24, 1989, to May 30, 1989. An evidentiary hearing was held May 30, 1989, to consider P's motion for a preliminary injunction. The TRO was continued until June 6, 1989, conditioned on P's posting an additional $5,000 bond. The court issued a preliminary injunction which restrained D and his affiliates from competing with P in a twelve-state area of the midwest until May 9, 1990, one year from the date on which P had resigned. The preliminary injunction was not conditioned on the posting of any additional bond by P. D appealed: D claims the district court erred in failing to condition its preliminary injunction on the posting of further security by P. D next contends the injunction is in effect a permanent one because it enforces the agreement. As such, the injunction should not have been ordered without notice to the parties that the court was considering permanent relief.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.