Peterson v. State, 671 So. 2d 647

Jury Instruction P

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI

AND

PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT

V.

NO.

DEFENDANT/COUNTER-PLAINTIFF

For businesses to be in competition, they need not be identical. Under Mississippi law, if their operations and markets overlap they are in competition. may not itself have done color separation work, but it did contract for such services with other companies such as and then it sold the finished product to its customers.

does color separation and competes directly for 's market and in 1992 its operations were almost identical to that of

Therefore, since and 's operations and markets overlapped, they were in competition and any services performed by for and its customers that directly or indirectly related to color separation was a violation of the covenant not to compete.

If you believe that has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that and entered into a contract that prohibited from engaging in any business or service that directly or indirectly competed with and that defendant violated that contract when (1) he sold printing for that included color separation work that was done somewhere other than , or (2) consulted about color separation work that was done somewhere other than , or (3) directed color work to somewhere other than , then it is your sworn duty to return a verdict for

Cockrell v. Davis, 23 So. 2d 256, 261 (Miss. 1945); Millard v.
Electronic Specialists, 790 F. Supp. 857, 859 (D. Miss. 1992);
Morris v. Homco Int'l, Inc~, 853 F.2d 337, 341 (5th Cir. 1988).