(b) the employee will not request, convince, convince or directly induce, or indirectly, to another person, a partnership, a company or a business organization, a person employed by the company or its related companies to leave or cease the exercise of these services; and five months after Dworkin`s departure, NMG continued to pay Dworkins` basic monthly salary of US$37,500. Dworkin then took over as chairman of Bonwit Teller, a small retail store, and wrote to NMG seeking damages for breach of its employment contract. NMG sued Dworkin in the regional court and sought a decision finding the validity of a “retraction agreement” between the parties or, alternatively, a judgment of money for payments made by NMG to Dworkin. Dworkin withdrew the case in the Federal Court and filed a separate complaint for breach of contract and various misdemeanors. The cases were consolidated and tried, and the jurors reached a verdict finding that NMG had violated the employment contract by dismissing Dworkin and that Dworkin had received $790,000 in damages. Despite the judgment, NMG made a judgment stating that (1) Dworkin had been legally prompted to challenge his resignation and (2) no evidence supported the jury`s decision on damages. The regional court has dismissed the applications, the NMG complaints, and we confirm. NMG rightly points out that estoppel does not necessarily depend on the existence of an agreement and that any type of deceptive behaviour can form the basis of an Estoppel. However, Dworkin`s contract had a significant influence on behavior that NMG considers to be the basis of estoppel. We do not need to find a resignation agreement to find an Estoppel, but we must not ignore the importance of the original employment contract. NMG has two problems: (1) The jury rejected its assertion that the parties changed their contractual positions by mutual agreement at the end of 1987; and (2) since Dworkin paid only what the contract required in 1988, NMG cannot prove any change in position, confidence or prejudice. NMG submits that it paid Dworkin in 1988 under the impression that he had resigned and that his 1987 agreement had only provided for a new job until dworkin.
The NMG is thus trying to adapt its contractual responsibility to its own wishes. The next NMG arrives at a just estoppel is the variant known as quasi-Estoppel, which the initial contract concludes. The restrictions are intended to enforce the worker`s commitments and obligations set out in this Section II, as well as the obligations and obligations of the worker that are due to the company; that the restrictions are reasonable and necessary, valid and applicable under Texas law, and are no more reluctant than necessary to protect the overvalue, confidential information and other legitimate business interests of the business; This employee will immediately notify the company in writing if the employee is of the opinion or is informed that the restrictions are not valid or applicable under Texas law or the law of another state that the employee affirms or advises; that the mutual commitments and commitments of the company and the worker, as defined in Sections I and II, do not depend on the length of the worker`s employment in society; And that in the absence of the employee`s commitments and assurances in Sections I and II, the company would ask the employee to provide confidential information held by the employee, not to provide the employee with new and additional confidential information, not to authorize the employee to participate in activities that would provide new and more confidential information and would not enter the plan or succeed.