SABERS, Justice.
Defendants challenge the non-competition and non-disclosure provisions of their employment contracts and damages awarded for breach of same.
FACTS
Centrol, Inc. of South Dakota (Centrol) is a South Dakota cooperative consisting of member cooperatives. It provides customized soil and crop consulting services to farmers through employees known as “crop consultants.” These crop consultants develop a wide variety of valuable and confidential information. To protect this information and customer good will, Centrol required its crop consultants to execute employment agreements with non-competition and non-disclosure provisions restricting competition with Centrol in Cen-trol’s Area of Primary Responsibility (APR) for a period of one year.
Prior to September 6, 1989, Kevin Morrow, Lynn Maass and Keith Parker (Defendants) were employed by Centrol as crop [892]*892consultants. Defendants simultaneously-resigned from Centrol on September 6, 1989. For a period of approximately five months prior to that date, they regularly disparaged Centrol to their customers and informed them of their intent to form competing companies. Before resigning from Centrol, they solicited Centrol’s customers for their own advantage. Defendants also used Centrol’s confidential and proprietary business records, customer lists, revenue reports, financial statements and patron survey forms to obtain bank financing to start and run their competing businesses. They continued to use this information in the operation of their businesses after resigning. Prior to resigning, Defendants consulted with Bill Platz, a former Centrol employee who had evaded Centrol’s non-competition agreement and court injunction by use of third party proxies. This consultation with Platz was to obtain the same legal counsel in hopes of using a similar evasion strategy. As part of this strategy, Defendants each formed separate corporations after September 6, 1989.
Defendants were three of only seven crop consultants employed by Centrol. They agreed to simultaneously resign without notice to Centrol and, in fact, affirmatively misled Centrol as to their intention to stay. Their departure from Centrol came at a critical time — when consulting contracts were about to be renewed for the following crop year. This reduced Cen-trol’s consultant staff by nearly one half. Immediately following their resignations, Defendants obtained consulting contracts with the majority of their prior customers.
On September 28, 1989, Centrol sued them claiming breach of non-disclosure and non-competition agreements, misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of fiduciary duties, conversion, and for punitive damages. On the same date, Centrol also filed a motion seeking a temporary injunction to restrain Defendants from directly or indirectly competing with it, from using Cen-trol’s confidential business information/trade secrets and from contacting any former Centrol customers obtained through breach of the agreements.
On October 13, 1989, the trial court granted Centrol’s motion and enjoined Defendants from continuing any competition. Upon issuance of this order, Defendants transferred all of their stock in the competing businesses to either the corporations or to their spouses. This resulted in the spouses being the sole shareholders, officers and directors of these corporations. These women had no knowledge or experience in the crop consulting business and were employed full time in jobs unrelated to these corporations. Following these transfers, the Defendants, through their spouses and the corporations, continued to service customers in violation of the preliminary injunction. In supplemental proceedings, on October 30, 1989, the court found these stock transfers and related activities to be transparent attempts to evade the preliminary injunction. The court found Defendants in contempt of its first injunction, ordered them to obey the mandates of the preliminary injunction and warned them that any further such activity would result in sanctions.
Despite the Preliminary Injunction of October 13 and the Supplemental Order for Preliminary Injunction of October 30, Defendants continued to provide soil testing, crop consulting and other related services. They attempted to conceal this misconduct by providing false and incomplete responses to discovery requests by Centrol.
The case was tried to the court and a judgment was entered in favor of Centrol. The court awarded Centrol compensatory damages of $201,073.76; punitive damages of $91,848.18; attorneys fees of $156,-054.88 and permanent injunctive relief.1
Defendants claim the court erred in:
(1) concluding that the non-competition and non-disclosure agreements were valid,
[893]*893(2) awarding compensatory and punitive damages for misappropriation of trade secrets,
(3) determining the amount of
(a) compensatory damages,
(b) punitive damages, and
(c) attorney fees,
(4) holding them jointly and severally liable,
(5) issuing the preliminary injunction, supplemental preliminary injunction and permanent injunction, and
(6) denying their pretrial motion for a jury trial.
1. VALIDITY OF NON-COMPETITION AND NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENTS.
Defendants claim the court erred in concluding that the non-competition and non-disclosure agreements were supported by consideration and valid under SDCL 53-9-11. Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo to determine if there is a mistake of law and “are given no deference by this court on appeal.” Permann v. Dept. of Labor, Unemp. Ins. D., 411 N.W.2d 113, 117 (S.D.1987).
The enforceability of non-competition agreements is governed by SDCL 53-9-11, which provides:
An employee may agree with an employer at the time of employment or at any time during his employment not to engage directly or indirectly in the same business or profession as that of his employer for any period not exceeding two years from the date of termination of the agreement and not to solicit existing customers of the employer within a specified county, city or other specified area for any period not exceeding two years from the date of termination of the agreement, if the employer continues to carry on a like business therein.
(emphasis added). These non-competition agreements were executed after Defendants began working for Centrol, were limited to a period of one year following termination and to the APR. Defendants do not challenge the time restriction, but claim that the agreements fail for lack of consideration and that the APR does not meet the “specified area” requirement of SDCL 53-9-11 as it is incapable of determination from the agreements.
In American Rim & Brake, Inc. v. Zoellner, 382 N.W.2d 421 (S.D.1986), this court upheld a non-competition agreement. The agreement in American met the time and area restrictions of SDCL 53-9-11. In American, the employees argued that the court must also find the non-competition agreement reasonable before it could be enforced. We rejected that argument stating:
SDCL 53-9-11 allows employers and employees to make exactly the kind of agreement entered into between American and defendants, without a further showing of reasonableness.
Id. at 424. The Defendants argue that the APR is undefined and undefinable and outside the statutory language of SDCL 53-9-11 and the American exception to reasonableness. The trial court found that the APR was not only defined and known to Defendants, but that Defendants themselves participated in the preparation of maps used to define it.
As noted above, the non-competition agreements were executed after Defendants began working for Centrol. These agreements were updated versions of similar agreements between Defendants and Centrol, Inc. of Webster.2 In American, we held that the signing of new non-competition agreements while already employed did not fail for lack of consideration in light of SDCL 53-8-7.3 Id. at 424.
Defendants make no specific' argument nor cite any authority contesting the validity of the non-disclosure portion of the agreements. “[A]n issue or argument not [894]*894briefed and supported by authority is considered abandoned.” Drier v. Great American Ins. Co., 409 N.W.2d 357, 361 (S.D.1987); see also Shaffer v. Honeywell, Inc., 249 N.W.2d 251, 258 (S.D.1976). Since the duration, area and consideration are valid under SDCL 53-8-7 and 53-9-11, the court’s conclusion that the non-competition and non-disclosure agreements were valid was not error.
2. AWARD OF DAMAGES.
Defendants claim the court erred in concluding that they misappropriated Centrol’s trade secrets in violation of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (Act), SDCL 37-29-1 to 37-29-11, and in awarding damages for such violation. As stated above, conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. Permann, 411 N.W.2d at 117. However, the court’s findings of fact must support the conclusions of law. Knodel v. Bd. of Cty. Com’rs., etc., 269 N.W.2d 386, 390 (S.D.1978); Kirkeby v. Renaas, 85 S.D. 515, 519, 186 N.W.2d 513, 516 (1971).
SDCL 37-29-1(4) provides:
‘Trade secret’ means information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique or process, that:
(i) Derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use; and
(ii) Is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.
Defendants claim Centrol’s customer lists, revenue reports, financial statements, patron survey forms, soil test results and crop consulting data do not rise to the level of trade secrets due to Centrol’s release of soil test results and crop monitoring reports to its member cooperatives. However, defendants admit that such information was confidential and proprietary and their use of such information to obtain bank financing for their competing businesses was a breach of their non-disclosure contracts with Centrol. In. 1st American Systems, Inc. v. Rezatto, 311 N.W.2d 51 (S.D.1981), a case decided prior to adoption of the Act, this court stated:
Even if the contract protects information which is technically not a trade secret, it clearly reveals the intent of the parties to create a confidential relationship. A breach of this relationship is actionable even if Rezatto could glean some of the information from public sources.... We hold that the expiration and renewal dates, personal customer data and customer names and addresses within appellant’s files taken together and construed in light of the contract’s express creation of confidentiality comprise a trade secret even though separately each item may not rise to that level.
Id. at 58-59. See generally, Mid-America Mktg. v. Dakota Industries, 281 N.W.2d 419 (S.D.1979), rev’d on reh’g 289 N.W.2d 797 (S.D.1980). Although Rezatto is not precedent under the Act, it is consistent with the Act.
In this case, the court found that Defendants not only signed the non-competition/non-disclosure agreements, they also certified that they had “read and fully [understood]” Centrol’s Policy Manual, which provides in part:
Two Basic Rules:
1. Don’t use confidential information for your personal gain.
2. Don’t pass along such information to someone else who has no work-related need to know.
Therefore, there was an express confidential relationship between Defendants and Centrol. The court also found that the confidential and trade secret information derived independent value from not being readily known or ascertainable, and that Centrol employed reasonable measures to protect this information through use of the Policy Manual and the non-competition/non-disclosure agreements.
Under the Act, any general dissemination of “confidential” information would negate a finding that such information constituted a trade secret. However, the only dissemination by Centrol of the confidential [895]*895and proprietary information was to its member cooperatives. Therefore, under Rezatto, no general dissemination occurred here and the information constituted a trade secret. Thus, the court’s findings of fact support its conclusions of law that Defendants misappropriated Centrol’s trade secrets in violation of the Act. Under the Act, damages could be awarded to Centrol. SDCL 37-29-3.
3. THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGES.
(a) Compensatory Damages.
Defendants claim the court erred in determining the amount of compensatory damages. Defendants mistakenly assume that SDCL 21-2-1 controls the determination of damages in this case;4 however, SDCL 37-29-3 provides for damages for misappropriation of trade secrets:
(a) ... Damages can include both the actual loss caused by misappropriation and the unjust enrichment caused by misappropriation that is not taken into account in computing actual loss. In lieu of damages measured by any other methods, the damages caused by misappropriation may be measured by imposition of liability for a reasonable royalty for a misappropriator’s unauthorized disclosure or use of a trade secret.
The court did not limit the award of compensatory damages to the misappropriation of trade secrets. It found and included breach of fiduciary duty, unfair competition and related misconduct in the award. Therefore, although 37-29-3 controls as to damages for misappropriation of trade secrets, SDCL 21-3-1 is available for the remaining torts.5
The court found that Central’s customer retention rate was high, and, but for Defendants’ misconduct, these customers would have remained with Centrol. The court also found that:
[Djespite Central’s reasonable efforts to retrieve its clientele, the record is clear that in 1989-1990 Centrol suffered substantial lost revenues and profits. (See, for example, Plaintiff’s Exhibits 103 and 104).
Therefore, the court multiplied each defendant’s 1989 retention rate against their respective 1989 gross revenues to determine damages. Under this method, the court measured compensatory damages at $201,-073.76 for one year as follows:
Name 1989 Retention Rate 1989 Revenue Compensatory Damages
$86,758.45 $ 76,954.75 Morrow OO OO
$81,592.30 $ 65,273.84 Maass O ® OO
$79,628.11 $ 58,845.17 Parker CO t-
$201,073.76
We do not accept this method of computation. Gross revenues fail to account for expenses. However, evidence appears to show that Centrol suffered a loss exceeding $95,000 in the year following Defendants’ actions.6 The court found that it would take Centrol “at least the next two [896]*896years, if not longer” to recover. Given these findings, substantial damages appear to be supported in the record under SDCL 37-29-3(a). Although the court erred in measuring one year’s damages and in reaching its award of $201,073.76, there appears to be proof of a reasonable basis from which substantial damages can be inferred. Walling Chemical Co. v. Bigner, 349 N.W.2d 647, 651-52 (S.D.1984). Since the measurement of damages is for the trial court, we reverse and remand for redetermination of damages from the record, or on rehearing, in the trial court’s discretion. M & M Contracting v. Midwestern Homes, Inc., 334 N.W.2d 223, 225-26 (S.D.1983); SDCL 15-30-14.
(b) Punitive Damages.
The Defendants claim the court erred in awarding exemplary or punitive damages to Centrol. As noted above, the trial court did not limit the damage award to misappropriation of trade secrets, but included breach of fiduciary duty, unfair competition and related misconduct. Therefore, the provisions of SDCL 21-3-27 and 37-29-3(b)8 apply. Generally, exemplary or punitive damages are not recoverable for breach of contract. SDCL 21-3-2. However, in Hoffman v. Louis Dreyfus Corp., 435 N.W.2d 211 (S.D.1989) we stated:
Conduct which merely is a breach of contract is not a tort, but the contract may establish a relationship demanding the exercise of proper care and acts and omissions in performance may give rise to tort liability.
Id. at 214 quoting Kunkel v. United Security Ins. Co., 84 S.D. 116, 135, 168 N.W.2d 723, 733 (1969). Although this contract established such a relationship through its non-disclosure/non-competition agreements and the policy manual, SDCL 37 — 29—3(b) is dispositive.
The court found Centrol established by clear and convincing evidence that Defendants’ actions were willful and malicious in the misappropriation of its confidential information and trade secrets. After determining relative culpability, the court concluded that Centrol was entitled to recover punitive damages of one-eighth of $58,-845.17 or $7,335.65 from Parker/Crop Pro; one-quarter of $76,954.75 or $19,238.69 from Morrow/Agronomics; and 100% of $65,273.84 from Maass/Crop Patrol. These amounts and the total amount of $91,848.18 were within the limits imposed by SDCL 37-29-3(b). However, punitive damages bear a relationship to compensatory damages, which we reversed and remanded in part 3(a). Therefore, these amounts must be reconsidered in light of the factors bearing upon punitive damages. Flockhart v. Wyant, 467 N.W.2d 473, 479 (S.D.1991) (citing Groseth Int’l Inc. v. Tenneco, Inc., 440 N.W.2d 276, 278 (S.D.1989); Wangen v. Knudson, 428 N.W.2d 242, 246 (S.D.1988)). This reconsideration should be done from the record.
(c) Attorney Fees of $156,054.88.
The trial court awarded Centrol attorney fees under SDCL 37-29-4(iii), SDCL 15-6-37(c) and because of Defendants’ violation of the Supplemental Preliminary Injunction.9 SDCL 37 — 29—4(iii) provides a sufficient basis for the award of attorney fees in this case since it allows “reasonable attorney’s fees to the prevailing party” when “willful and malicious misappropriation ex[897]*897ists.” Although Defendants claim the award of attorney fees was error due to a lack of “willful and malicious misappropriation,” we have already ruled in parts 3(a) and (b) that such misappropriation existed.
Defendants objected to Centrol’s attorney fees in the trial court. The trial court sustained some of these objections, but found the majority of Centrol’s attorney fees reasonable.10 Centrol claims the award was adequately supported by Affidavits and time and billing records. On appeal, defendants’ briefs and specific claims of error relate only to the three bases of liability used by the trial court to impose attorney fees. As noted above, we have already decided this issue adversely to the defendants. On appeal, defendants do not claim error as to any specific items or amounts and any such claim is waived on appeal. See, SDCL 15-26A-60(6); Nielsen v. McCabe, 442 N.W.2d 477, 480 (S.D.1989). We affirm this award for attorney fees.
4.JOINT AND SEVERAL LIABILITY.
The Defendants claim the court erred in concluding that the Defendants were jointly and severally liable for compensatory damages and attorneys fees. The court made findings and conclusions that the Defendants conspired to accomplish their unfair competition with Centrol. Under SDCL 15-8-11:
“[Jjoint tort-feasors” means two or more persons jointly or severally liable in tort for the same injury to person or property, whether or not judgment has been recovered against all or some of them.
Although the court measured damages individually, Centrol received one judgment against all of the Defendants for the same injury to its business. Therefore, the court’s conclusion and order making the Defendants jointly and severally liable for the entire award of compensatory damages and attorneys fees is not error. SDCL 15-8-11.
5.PRELIMINARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTIONS.
The Defendants claim the court erred in issuing the preliminary, supplemental preliminary and permanent injunctions. However, Defendants mistakenly base this claim on SDCL 21-8-2(5) which provides in part:
An injunction cannot be granted:
[[Image here]]
(5) To prevent the breach of a contract, the performance of which would not be specifically enforced.
Under SDCL 21-9-2(1), obligations “to render personal service” will not be specifically enforced. The agreements in this case are not obligations to render personal service but obligations restricting competition, permitted under SDCL 53-9-11, after termination of personal service. Additionally, injunctive relief is expressly authorized under SDCL 37-29-2(a) when actual or threatened misappropriation occurs and may be continued for “an additional reasonable period of time in order to eliminate commercial advantage[.]” Therefore, Defendants’ argument is without merit and the court’s issuance of the injunctions was not error.
6.DENIAL OF JURY TRIAL.
The Defendants’ final claim is that the court erred in denying them a jury trial. SDCL 15-6-38(b) provides:
Any party may demand a trial by jury of any issue triable of right by a jury by serving upon the other parties a demand therefor in writing at any time after the commencement of the action and not later than ten days after the service of the last pleading directed to such issue. Such demand may be endorsed upon a pleading of the party.
(emphasis added). Defendants served the last pleading, an Answer to First Amended Complaint and Counterclaim, on April 4, 1990. No request for jury trial was made [898]*898in this answer or in any prior pleading. Under SDCL 15-6-38(b), Defendants could have served a demand for jury trial until April 14, 1990. Assuming Centrol served a response to Defendants’ counterclaim on the last day allowed, Defendants could have served a demand for jury trial as late as May 14, 1990. Defendants made no demand for a jury trial until August 10, 1990. SDCL 15-6-38(d) provides in part:
The failure of a party to serve a demand as required by § 15-6-38 constitutes a waiver by him of trial by jury.
Therefore, Defendants’ failure to timely serve a demand for a jury trial within the time limits imposed by SDCL 15-6-38(b) “constitutes a waiver.” See, Spear v. Dayton’s, 771 F.2d 1140, 1144 (8th Cir.1985); Littlefield v. Fort Dodge Messenger, 614 F.2d 581, 585 (8th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 945, 100 S.Ct. 1342, 63 L.Ed.2d 779 (1980).
There has been no showing from Defendants to justify their delay. After losing on the preliminary injunctions and several other motions, Defendants obtained new counsel. He made a demand for jury trial, apparently as trial strategy. Such a move is analogous to losing pre-trial motions before a particular judge and then deciding that a new judge would be preferable. SDCL 15-12-24 prohibits such an attempt:
The submission to a judge or magistrate of argument or proof in support of a motion or application, or upon trial, is a waiver of the right thereafter to file an affidavit for change of such judge or magistrate by any party or his counsel who submitted the same [.]
Therefore, the court’s denial of Defendants’ untimely demand for jury trial was not an abuse of discretion. •
We affirm except for parts 3(a) and (b), which we reverse and remand for redeter-mination of damages consistent with this opinion.
MILLER, C.J., and AMUNDSON, J., concur.
WUEST and HENDERSON, JJ., concur in part and dissent in part.