Smith (P) entered into a written contract with Price's(D) to serve as a wholesale distributor of D's products within a specified area. D's representative indicated so long as they performed satisfactorily, the distributorship would continue indefinitely. D's representatives were aware that P had paid a former distributor $72,637 to purchase the distributorship and equipment and had borrowed $26,000 for working capital and additional assets to perform the duties under the agreement. The agreement between the parties contained a 30-day notice of termination for any reason by either party and a two-year noncompete clause within the distributorship area. Just six months later P received a notice of termination by D. P sued D. P contended the termination provision was unconscionable and void as a matter of law. D got a summary judgment and P appealed.

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

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.