1  See Brown Stove Works v. Kimsey, 119 Ga. App. 453, 455 (167 SE2d 693) (1969), written by Judge Eberhardt, which interpreted Collins v. Storer Broadcasting Co., 217 Ga. 41 (120 SE2d 764) (1961) as follows: "As we understand the Collins case the Supreme Court holds that to make . . . refraining from competitive activity a condition precedent to participation in a profit-sharing plan on the one hand, and to restrict [the] right to enter into a competitive activity . . . by a contract in restraint of trade on the other, are separate and distinct matters. That the agreement, because of its unreasonableness, may be void in the latter instance does not mean that it is void as a condition. . . . A restriction in the contract which does not preclude the employee from engaging in competitive activity, but simply provides for the loss of rights or privileges if he does so is not in restraint of trade." (Collins held that the allegation by a former employee that the enforcement of forfeiture provisions made pursuant to a profit-sharing plan was wilful and wanton failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.)See also Sheppard v. Columbus Packaging Co., 146 Ga. App. 202, 203 (245 SE2d 887) (1978), which relied upon Brown Stove and Collins. In Sheppard, the court enforced a provision in an employment contract that provided for deferred compensation so long as the former employee did not engage in competition.See also KEM Manufacturing Corp. v. Sent, 182 Ga. App. 135, 137 (355 SE2d 437) (1987): "We believe, however, that the critical inquiry under Sheppard is whether the restrictive covenant actually precludes the employee from engaging in the prohibited activity, or whether the covenant simply provides for the loss of rights or privileges if the employee violates the covenant."Note that the contracts in this case did both, i.e., proscribed competition and prescribed forfeiture.

2  The opinion stated that "[a] jury could find that Williams acted outside the scope of its powers by notifying [the insurance company] and requesting that it terminate Faircloth's contract." 190 Ga. App. at 875 (2).

3  Faircloth relies upon a provision in both vice-president contracts declaring, in the event of a conflict between the two, that the provisions of the senior vice-president contract will govern. Based on that provision, he contends that the regional vice-president contract is also terminable only for cause. That contention is meritless, as it would lead to the logical conclusion that the latter contract is utterly devoid of legal import.

4  This proposition may not apply to discharge for a reason that is impermissible on grounds of public policy, such as a discharge based upon race.

5  The trial court denied the motion for summary judgment as to count one, which was not appealed. That leaves for the decision of a jury whether the termination of the senior vice-president contract was "for cause."