Carol C. Poole, Respondent, v. Incentives Unlimited, Inc. d/b/a Dunlap Motivation and Travel, Petitioner, and Incentives Unlimited, Inc. d/b/a Dunlap Motivation and Travel, Third-Party Plaintiff, v. Northshore Travel, Inc., Third-Party Defendant., 345 S.C. 378

Summary

The trial judge had granted summary judgment to plaintiff on the ground the covenant not to compete was unenforceable and invalid since: (1) it was not supported by consideration; and (2) it was not witnessed by a disinterested party as required by S.C. Code Ann. § 41-19-50 (Law. Co-op. 1976). The court of appeals affirmed, holding the covenant was invalid and unenforceable due to a lack of consideration. Appellant was granted certiorari by the supreme court. The supreme court agreed with plaintiff that separate consideration, in addition to continued at-will employment, was needed for the covenant to be enforceable. The court of appeals had not erred in refusing to address its argument that § 41-19-50 was inapplicable to civil cases; and had been repealed, because, in light of its finding that the agreement was unenforceable for lack of consideration, a ruling on § 41-19-50 was unnecessary.