Woods v. May73 Wash.2d 307 (1968)Fact:Operative Facts:Woods was a master horseshoer, and took on an apprentice horseshoer, May. They signed a contract that stated, if May was to stopped working for Woods, for the first 5 years afterwards, he could not work in an area within 100 miles from Oakwood Horseshoeing, as a horseshoer or a blacksmith, or other related fields. May ended up quitting, and starting up his own business. Issue:Whether May can claim a illegality defense, stating that the contract is void because it was made purely so the employer would face less competition and just to protect his income. Rule:A employment contract to convey and not compete is void for reasons of public policy only if the contract was made sololy to protect trade secrets, customer lists, and other highly sensitive information from competitions.Rational:May was an apprentice, and to become a horeshoer, they must either go to school to learn how to shoe horses, or to go through a mentorship program, and learn from a master horeshoer. This was consider the trade secret, and May benefit a lot from this, and it was
This is the end of the preview.
access the rest of the document.
Woods, Tiger Woods, horseshoer, apprentice horseshoer