Gordon v. Wasserman

DRAPEAU, J. pro tem.

*

This is a similar case to

Gordon

v.

Landau,

(

†

Cal.App.) [314 P.2d 757], decided this day, and to

Gordon

v.

Schwartz,

147 Cal.App.2d 213 [305 P.2d 117].

There is no need to repeat in this opinion the facts as to plaintiffs’ business, and their relations with their customers and employees. These may be read in the Schwartz and Landau cases.

Suffice it to say here that Robert S. Wasserman, defendant in this case, was also a collector-salesman for plaintiffs; that he quit their employ, went into the same business, and then used plaintiffs’ lists to solicit customers for himself.

In this case the trial court adjudged damages for plaintiffs and enjoined any further use of their lists by defendant.

[329]

Substantial evidence supports that part of the judgment. Therefore, these matters do not require further comment in this opinion.

But in this case this court must determine the validity of a contract between plaintiffs and defendant, in which defendant agreed not to solicit plaintiffs’ customers for a year after the termination of his employment with them. This determination was not necessary to the decision in the Landau case.

Defendant contends that there was no consideration for the contract; that it is too vague and uncertain to be enforceable ; that no wages or conditions of employment are specified in it; and that it has an unlawful object and is therefore void.

The last objection is,the only one that merits any particular consideration.

• " It clearly appear^ in the contract that there was a consideration, and that.it is neither vague nor uncertain. And to be valid it did not have to state wages or conditions of employment.