Thе plaintiff, Nasco, Inc., sought injunctions and liquidated damages against Gimbert, a former employee, based on noncompetition, nonsolicitation and nondisclosure covenants in his employment contract. Plaintiff also sought an injunction prohibiting the defendant from hiring plaintiffs employees under employment contracts with the plаintiff. The trial court denied injunctive relief and granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
1. The two-year covenants against competition, customer solicitation and disclosure, set forth in the contract, expired on Aрril 9, 1977. Hence, this appeal is moot insofar as it seeks review of the denial of injunctive relief to enforce the contract.
2. The contract specifies that it shall be construed and enforced pursuant to Tеnnessee law. Plaintiff contends that the trial court erred in applying Georgia law.
The plaintiff is a Tennesseе corporation which recently qualified to do business in Georgia. The contract *676 indicates that the emрloyee was a resident of Georgia when the contract was made and he was to perform the contract in Georgia, particularly west Georgia and Atlanta.
Although the plaintiff and the defendant had agreed that the contract would be construed pursuant to the law of Tennessee, the trial court applied the lаw of Georgia. We find no error. The law of the jurisdiction chosen by parties to a contract to govern thеir contractual rights will not be applied by Georgia courts where application of the chosen law would contravene the policy of, or would be prejudicial to the interests of, this state. Code Ann. § 102-110;
Ulman &c. Woolen Co. v. Magill,
3. Paragraph five of the contract is lаbeled as a covenant against disclosure of trade secrets. Actually it is a covenant agáinst disclosure of "any information concerning any matters affecting or relating to the business of employer” including but not limited tо the identity of any of employer’s customers, its prices (including the prices at which it sells its products), and its production, manufacturing, sales promotion and merchandising methods and systems. The covenant is effective during employment and is in effect for two years following termination of employment. It provides for $50,000 as liquidated damages for breach, in addition to injunctive relief.
There is a great deál of public information concerning many matters which would affect or relate to the business of the employer; e.g., interest rates or minimum wage legislation.
This nondisсlosure covenant is overly broad and unreasonable in that it would prohibit disclosure of information not neеded for the protection of the
*677
employer’s legitimate business interests.
Durham, v. Stand-By Labor,
4. The plaintiff sought an interlocutory injunction, pending further proceedings, to рrevent defendant from pirating its employees under contract; i.e., to prevent interference by defеndant with contractual relations between plaintiff and its employees. The trial court found that the defendant had hired one salesman who was an employee of the plaintiff. The court also found that the salesman’s duties and abilities were similar to those of over one hundred other employees of plaintiff. For this reason the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying an interlocutory injunction.
Pendley v. Lake Harbin Civic Assn.,
5. Plaintiff contends that the trial court erred in grаnting summary judgment against plaintiff’s claim for relief based on defendant’s interference with plaintiffs employment contracts with its key employees in its sales and marketing operations.
Interference with contract has long been an actionable wrong in Georgia.
Jones & Jeter v. Blocker,
The defendant admitted contacting during their employment three оf plaintiff’s employees who were in the fund raising division. He admitted discussing with each of these three the possibility of bеcoming employed by the company of which the defendant is president. The defendant admitted that he subsequently employed one of these persons.
The trial court found that plaintiff had failed to show that the one employee it lost to defendant’s inducements had been under an employment contract. Although in seeking injunctivе relief it may be incumbent on plaintiff to prove that its former employee had been under contract, in seeking summary judgment it was incumbent on the movant (the defendant) to show the absence of employment contracts in order to show that there is no interference with contractual relations. See
Davis v. Dickson,
Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part.