Icecorp International Corp VS Nicolaus-Free-Samples for Students

Question: Describe the decision the Court Reached in the Case and the reasons for the decision. Answer: In the given case, between Icecorp International Cargo Expreess Corp vs Nicolaus, the judge has mainly given focus on the interpretation of the signed agreement between the two above mentioned parties. The purpose of the agreement was to prevent Nicolaus, an employee of Icecorp, who was leaving Icecorp to join another similar company, from manipulating the past, present and future customers of Icecorp and disclosing the confidential information of the company, subject to a severance period of six months. The written agreement stated few obligations to be fulfilled by Nicolaus, after his retirement from Icecorp. These obligations were mentioned under few clauses in the written agreement, which also had a severance period for the fulfillment of the obligations. Nicolaus was sued by Icecorp for the breach of his fiduciary duty of not soliciting the customers of Icecorp and for leaking confidential information of the company. The judge in deciding this case found out that in clause 6 of the agreement it is clearly stated that Nicolaus is not to solicit the past, present and future customers of Icecorp after he retires. But in this clause, it is clearly mentioned that Nicolaus is prohibited to do so only during a severance period of six months. Hence, according to the judge, the fiduciary duty of Nicolaus in respect of soliciting Iccorps clients is limited to the six month severance period mentioned clearly in the clause, and Nicolaus cannot be held liable for breach of fiduciary duty for soliciting Icecorps clients after the expiry the severance period (Thornicroft 2014). Secondly, the judge focuses on clause 7 of the agreement that prohibited Nicolaus to disclose any confidential information of Icecorp. Clause 7 clearly stated that Nicolaus cannot leak any confidential information regarding Icecorp after his retirement. But the judge points out that in this clause there has been no mentioning of any severance period and it cannot be said that the obligation of Nicolaus of not disclosing confidential information is not limited to a time period and hence, it is assumed to be continuing (McKendrick 2014). But the judge does not clearly state whether in this case the duty of Nicolaus is a continuing one or not and the exact time to which the duty of Nicolaus is limited in this case. Hence, he is unable to state whether there has been a breach of fiduciary duty by Nicolaus or not. Therefore, according to the decision of the judge, this case can be decided by a traditio nal trial in a proper tribunal, where proper evidences can be called for to determine the case. References: McKendrick, E., 2014.Contract law: text, cases, and materials. Oxford University Press (UK). Thornicroft, K.W., 2014. Severance Pay and the Older Worker: Negotiated Versus Litigated Outcomes Under Canadian Common Law.Alta. L. Rev.,52, p.779.