Question: Douglass was a highly trained servicer of hardnesstesting machinery, who was employed by PageWilson. In August and April 1983, Douglass signed two employment agreements governing the terms and conditions of his employment with Page-Wilson. The first agreement prohibited Douglass, while he was working for Page-Wilson and for one year after the termination of his employment, from using, to PageWilson's detriment, any of its customer list or other intellectual property acquired from his job there. Thesecond agreement, which applied to the same time period, prohibited Douglass from accepting employment from or serving as a consultant to any business that was in competition with Page-Wilson. In April 1987, Canrad Corporation purchased all assets and contractual rights of Page-Wilson, including Douglass's two employment contracts. Special Products Manufacturing, a wholly owned subsidiary of Canrad, assumed plant operations. Douglas worked for Special Products until his resignation in February 1988. Shortly after that time, Special Products filed suit against Douglass, alleging that Douglass had affixed his name and home telephone number to the machines he serviced, so that the ensuing maintenance calls would reach him personally. It also alleged that, following his resignation, Douglass established a competing business and actively solicited Special Products' clientele. Douglass claims that Special Products did not have the right to enforce the agreements not to compete. Is Douglass correct?