Three salesmen worked for Sentient Jet, a small luxury airline charter service. They signed a noncompete agreement, promising not to go to work for a competing employer within a year after working for Sentient and not to take any confidential information with them when they left the firm. When there was a change in the CEO of their firm and talk of the company possibly being bought out, the employees left the firm and went to work for Apollo Jets, a competitor, and allegedly took proprietary information with them that allowed them to solicit former Sentient clients. The plaintiff sought damages and an injunction to ban the employees from working for a competitor for a year. Defendants argued that material changes in circumstances should have made the noncompete agreement unenforceable. How do you think the jury decided in this case? [Sentient Jet v. MacKenzie, January 2013.]