In October 1985, Beatriz Pino signed a five-year employment contract as a radio announcer and disc jockey with two radio stations. The contact provided that Pino would not "engage directly or indirectly in the broadcasting business... in Dade or Broward Counties , Florida, for a period of twelve (12) months after the termination of her employment by the stations." The contract also provided that it was assignable. In December 1986, the stations sold their assets to Spanish Broadcasting System of Florida, Inc. (SBS), and as part of the sale, Pino's contract was assigned to SBS. In October 1989, Pino contracted with Viva, a broadcasting competitor of SBS, to begin working for Viva when her SBS contact terminated in March 1990. SBS asked a Florida state court to grant a temporary injunction to enforce the agreement not to compete. Pino contended that the assignment of the clause containing the covenant not to compete was invalid. Although a Florida statute provided that covenants not to compete could be enforced, it said nothing about such covenants being assignable. The trial court held for SBS, and Pino appealed.

What was the Issue? (Was the covenant not to compete assignable?)

What do you think was the decision?

What was the reasons for this decision.

Critical thinking: What interests must a court balance when deciding whether a covenant not to compete is assignable?