ILNews

COA turns to dictionary in contract dispute

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Citing Black’s Law Dictionary’s definitions of “solicit” and “induce,” the Indiana Court of Appeals has affirmed a trial court’s finding that a software company did not violate terms of its contract with another business.

In 2009, Hypersonic Technologies and Enhanced Network Solutions entered into a subcontractor agreement in which ENS would acquire certain items from Hypersonic to service its own clients. A clause in the agreement prepared by ENS stated that – unless mutually agreed to by both parties – the companies would “refrain from soliciting or inducing, or attempting to solicit or induce, any employee of the other Party in any manner that may reasonably be expected to bring about the termination.” After an employee left ENS to join Hypersonic, ENS alleged Hypersonic had violated that agreement.

The two companies never successfully bid on a contract, and Hypersonic terminated its agreement with ENS on June 21, 2010. While the contract was still in effect, Hypersonic had posted a job opening online. ENS employee Robert Dobson saw the posting and contacted Hypersonic to ask about the position. Dobson met with Hypersonic’s owner and president sometime in April 2010 to further discuss the job. But Hypersonic did not extend an offer to Dobson at that time.

The three met again about a week afterward, and Dobson explained his terms of compensation and what he was looking for in a new position. Hypersonic then extended a job offer, and Dobson began working for Hypersonic in May 2010.

Dobson, the appeals court held, initiated contact with Hypersonic. “In other words, Dobson solicited Hypersonic,” the court’s opinion stated.

ENS claimed that despite the fact that Dobson initiated the contacts with Hypersonic, Hypersonic solicited Dobson when it continued talking with him. In support, ENS referred to an out-of-state case – Scarbrough v. Liberty National Life Insurance Co., 872 So.2d 283 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004) – which stands for the premise that in appropriate circumstances, a person may solicit another’s business regardless of who initiates the meeting.

In Scarbrough, after a former client initially contacted Scarbrough, an insurance agent, Scarbrough proactively provided the client with a comparison between the benefits and premiums offered by the client’s former insurance company and the insurance company for which Scarbrough currently worked. Id. at 284-85. The Florida Court of Appeals recognized that being “proactive” was included within the term “solicit.” See id. at 285. But the Indiana COA held that because Dobson initiated all major steps that led to his employment, the Florida case doesn’t apply to Enhanced Network Solutions v. Hypersonic Technologies, No. 02A03-1011-PL-609.

The COA also held that the agreement lacked a definition of the terms “solicit” and “induce.” In finding that Hypersonic did not violate the agreement, the court turned to Black’s Law Dictionary for a literal interpretation of the terms in question, which states that solicit means: “[t]he act or an instance of requesting or seeking to obtain something; a request or petition”; and induce means: “[t]he act or process of enticing or persuading another person to take a certain course of action.”

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  2. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  3. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  4. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  5. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

ADVERTISEMENT