Advocate for NEUROLOGICAL ASSOCIATES in your memo.

Compose a 5-7-page memorandum that focuses on the enforceability of the restrictive covenant. Your memorandum should contain: 1) a brief summary of relevant facts of the dispute (“brief” meaning in about a page at most – do not merely quote the facts as they are stated in the textbook); 2) an explanation of each legal issue in the analysis with an application of legal rules or doctrines governing the dispute; 3) a list of all remedies that your side is entitled to; 4) a tenable solution to attempt to resolve the dispute in a non-judicial forum. Your memorandum should articulate arguments that support your side of the case by citing directly from the Longville cases points of law and opinion excerpts (use a simple parenthetical citation format with the first name of case and point/excerpt number such as Wellspan at Point 2, or Regional at Excerpt b1”).
You may use supporting legal arguments from other states, but be sure to properly cite to any other sources. Include the course textbook in your “References” or “Works Cited” section since it is at least the source of the problem and Longville case law.
Be sure to explain why you cited a particular point. Start with your strongest argument and give an analysis as to the likelihood of success of each theory.
In determining a tenable solution, carefully consider the objectives of each party (e.g., NA’s desire to protect their legitimate business interest; Blackwell’s desire to practice medicine in southwestern Longville).
Additional Information:

In your memo, make sure you include the legal reasoning needed to show your understanding and mastery of contract law. Make sure your memo provides a complete answer the following questions and issues.

  1. Identify the formation elements in the first contract signed by the parties and give a legal opinion on their validity.
  2. Identify the formation elements in the non-compete agreement, signed later and give a legal opinion on their validity.
  3. Could Blackwell reasonably claim that she was under duress when signing the restrictive covenant? What factors would suggest that she could/couldn’t. Is the fact that she subjectively feared for her job relevant? Why?
  4. What is the primary factor in deciding whether a party may avoid a contract based on a claim of undue influence? Could it apply to the Blackwell case? What arguments can the parties make to assert or overcome such a claim?
  5. Apply the good faith standard that underlies all contract law in terms of how the parties acted in this case. Could either party have breached the covenant of good faith? What actions specifically support your conclusion?
  6. Did any of the parties’ actions on either side amount to a breach of contract? Does the doctrine of anticipatory repudiation apply? Why? When, if ever, did one party anticipatorily repudiate the Employment Agreement?
  7. Assuming Blackwell prevails (wins), what remedies are available to her? Assuming NA prevails, what remedies are available to it?
  8. Can NA legitimately protect their interests in their patient base and referral base in the entire 50-mile radius? Couldn’t Blackwell simply locate her practice outside the restricted area? What arguments could either party make to justify/deny the effectiveness of such a restriction?
  9. The case law does not give an exact number of years, but there are no cases that provide for a 3-year covenant such as the one Blackwell signed. Is 3 years necessary to protect NA’s interest? What argument would you make in support of NA’s claim that such an extended time period is required? What argument would you make to support Blackwell’s claim that it is unreasonable?
  10. Given the objectives of each party (e.g. NA’s desire to protect their legitimate business interest; Blackwell’s desire to practice medicine in southwestern Longville), could the parties agree to a tenable, non-judicial solution that is mutually beneficial? What terms would you propose? What process would be best or required?’

Sample Solution