Paul Abert appeals from a judgment entered after a nonjury trial in the Superior Court (Hancock County, Atwood, J.) awarding damages of $30,000 to Roger Brignull for Abert’s breach of a noncompetition agreement. Abert argues that the trial court erred in enforcing the agreement and that the damages awarded are not supported by the evidence and are punitive in nature. We affirm the judgment.
Roger Brignull is an optometrist with offices in Bar Harbor and Ellsworth. In 1985 he hired Paul Abert as an associate. The parties signed a series of one-year employment contracts that included a noncompetition agreement. In the last contract, which was in effect until September 1988, the non-competition agreement provided that Abert would not practice optometry on Mount Desert Island or within twenty miles of Ells-worth for a period of four years after leaving
In the spring of 1988 the relationship between the parties deteriorated. Albert informed Brignull that he would no longer work on Saturdays as required by his contract and that he intended to quit. Albert left Brignull’s practice in September 1988 and worked as an optometrist in the Camden-Rockland area for fifteen months. In January 1990 he returned to Ellsworth and opened an optometry practice within two miles of Brignull’s office. In the first six months of opening his new practice, Albert saw 210 of Brignull’s former patients.
In February 1990 Brignull filed a complaint against Albert alleging, inter alia, breach of contract and breach of the noncom-petition agreement. The court found that Albert breached the employment contract and awarded $600 in damages. The court also found that Albert breached the noncom-petition agreement and awarded $30,000 in damages as provided in the contract. On appeal, Albert challenges only the award of $30,000.
Albert contends that the noncompetition agreement was not supported by consideration, did not serve a legitimate business purpose, and was unreasonably broad. We disagree. Employment itself has been held to be consideration for a noncompetition covenant in an employment contract.
Ferrofluidics Corp. v. Advanced Vacuum Components, Inc.,
The reasonableness of a noncom-petition covenant is a question of law that must be determined by the facts developed in each ease as to its duration, geographic area, and the interests sought to be protected.
Chapman & Drake v. Harrington,
Finally, because the reasonableness of a noncompetition agreement depends on the specific facts of the case, we assess the agreement only as Brignull has sought to apply it and not as it might have been enforced on its terms. Id. We agree with the trial court’s finding that prohibiting Albert from competing within two miles of Brig-null’s office and within sixteen months after leaving the job was reasonable.
Albert raises the additional contention that the damage award was not supported by the evidence and was punitive in nature. We find no merit in this argument. We review the enforceability of a provision for liquidated damages as a question of law.
Pacheco v. Scoblionko,
The entry is:
Judgment affirmed.