About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


77 U. Pa. L. Rev. 970 (1928-1929)
Implied Obligation of an Employee

handle is hein.journals/pnlr77 and id is 990 raw text is: June, z929 THE IMPLIED OBLIGATION OF AN EMPLOYEE JOHN E. HANNIGAN This right of the employ6 to use his abilities, developed through his experiences, to the utmost of his capacity, . . and his obligation to preserve to the full the property rights of his employer are shaded into each other by lines so fine that it is doubtful whether anything but a nice sense of honor can keep them distinguished, said judge Dicidnson.1 Does he mean that a court, passing upon these twilight questions, may need a moral light to guide, in addition to that of legal science? Nothing should be clearer to the judicial understanding than a legal ab- straction, nor less difficult for the intelligent layman than a spe- cific point of personal honor. The American courts are in con- fusion, apparently, as to the ethical application of the rules to facts. There are certain plain rules, applicable to these situations. The employee's right to lawful freedom is not to be covenanted away for his employer's benefit,2 nor a debtor's for the benefit of a creditor.3 On the other hand, the employer's rights will be protected from a servant's, or ex-servant's, breach of that con- fidence which was incidental to the employment relation.4 Every covenant running to an employer, restricting the post-relation freedom of an employee, is prima fade unlawful, but the pre- sumption disappears when the covenant is shown to be reason- ably necessary for the employer's protection, The express contract of the vendor of a going business, not to engage in the same line as that of the business which he has sold, will not be enforced. Anti-competition agreements per se are invalid. The vendor's express or implied contract not to 'DuPont de Nemours Powder Co. v. Masland, 216 Fed. 271, 272 (E. D. Pa. 1914). 2Herbert Morris, Ltd. v. Saxelby, [i96] i A. C. 688. 'Horwood v. Millar's Timber & Trading Ca., [1917] i K. B. 305. 'Robb v. Green, [1895] : Q. B. i. 5Attwood v. Lamont, [I9i2o 3 K B. 571. (97o)