Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Keyword
-
- BarillaAmerica Inc. v. Wright (1)
- Boston university (1)
- Breach of Contract (1)
- Bridgestone/Firestone Inc. v. Lockhart (1)
- Constitutional (1)
-
- Discrimination (1)
- DoubleClick Inc. v. Henderson (1)
- Economic Espionage Act (1)
- Employment (1)
- Freedom to fire (1)
- Freedom to leave (1)
- General knowledge (1)
- Good Faith (1)
- Guillen (1)
- Inevitable Disclosure Doctrine (1)
- Lawler Mfg. Co. v. Bradley Corp. (1)
- Lochner (1)
- Marietta Corp. v Fairhurst (1)
- Merck & Co. v. Lyon (1)
- Noncompetition agreements (1)
- Nondisclosure agreements (1)
- PepsiCo Inc. v. Redmond (1)
- Rencor Controls Inc. v. Stinson (1)
- Restatement of Unfair Competition (1)
- Specific knowledge (1)
- Threatened misappropriation (1)
- Trade secrets (1)
- Uniform Trade Secrets Act (1)
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Labor and Employment Law
The Doctrine Of Good Faith In Contract Law: A (Nearly) Empty Vessel?, Emily Houh
The Doctrine Of Good Faith In Contract Law: A (Nearly) Empty Vessel?, Emily Houh
Faculty Articles and Other Publications
Empty Vessel explores both the positive and normative questions of what the contractually implied obligation of good faith does and should require of contracting parties. The Article attempts to assess and evaluate the ways in which courts are currently employing the good faith doctrine in contract disputes, as part of a larger project whose goal is to re-conceive and reinvigorate the private law doctrine of good faith as one that might assist in effecting the public law norm of equality. Empty Vessel identifies two dominant theoretical approaches to how to define good faith, which I refer to as the fairness …
When Trade Secrets Become Shackles: Fairness And The Inevitable Disclosure Doctrine, Elizabeth A. Rowe
When Trade Secrets Become Shackles: Fairness And The Inevitable Disclosure Doctrine, Elizabeth A. Rowe
UF Law Faculty Publications
Critics of the inevitable disclosure doctrine decry the inconsistency with which courts rule on these cases, and the difficulty in predicting case outcomes. They contend that courts are left to "grapple with a decidedly ... nebulous standard of 'inevitability."' Further, they claim the doctrine undermines the employee's fundamental right to move freely and pursue his or her livelihood.
Ultimately, both the problem and solution here are about fairness: fairness in the employer-employee relationship, fairness in the application of the law, and fairness in providing protection from unfair competition between competing employers. The crux of the opposition to the doctrine, in …
Introduction, David J. Seipp
Introduction, David J. Seipp
Faculty Scholarship
Have we come to bury Lochner, or to praise it? Lochner v. New York,' decided 100 years ago, gave its name to an era in which judges struck down popular statutes that regulated hours, wages, and conditions of work, on grounds that such labor regulations violated a constitutional liberty of contract. After 1937, Lochnerism and Lochnerizing were more or less uniformly condemned by judges and law professors alike. Recently, some scholars have tried to resurrect the Lochner approach, presumably as a way to render much of the twentieth-century regulatory state unconstitutional.