Mixing
Can an employer prevent an employee from branching off as a competitor? [closed]
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
up vote
-1
down vote
favorite
In contractual terms, before employment even begins, can an employer prevent a employee from branching off and:
- directly competing against the employer's company by forming a similar company of their own.
- indirectly competing against the employer's company by commencing work for an company that directly or indirectly competes against it.
E.g. A twenty year "cooling off" period or indefinitely.
My intention is to prevent the internal dynamics of my company, methodologies that I've arduously refined over the past decade, from being used against me by second parties or disclosed to third parties.
My understanding is that a contract is an agreement that must be legally honored once signed irrespective of the terms so long as they're fairly communicated.
contracts employment-agreement employment
asked Aug 5 '15 at 12:38
Clarus Dignus
1073
closed as off-topic by Kent A., Joel Etherton, David K, scaaahu, Jan Doggen Aug 5 '15 at 13:15
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "Questions seeking advice on company-specific regulations, agreements, or policies should be directed to your manager or HR department. Questions that address only a specific company or position are of limited use to future visitors. Questions seeking legal advice should be directed to legal professionals. For more information, click here." – Kent A., Joel Etherton, David K, scaaahu, Jan Doggen
 |Â
show 9 more comments
up vote
-1
down vote
favorite
In contractual terms, before employment even begins, can an employer prevent a employee from branching off and:
- directly competing against the employer's company by forming a similar company of their own.
- indirectly competing against the employer's company by commencing work for an company that directly or indirectly competes against it.
E.g. A twenty year "cooling off" period or indefinitely.
My intention is to prevent the internal dynamics of my company, methodologies that I've arduously refined over the past decade, from being used against me by second parties or disclosed to third parties.
My understanding is that a contract is an agreement that must be legally honored once signed irrespective of the terms so long as they're fairly communicated.
contracts employment-agreement employment
asked Aug 5 '15 at 12:38
Clarus Dignus
1073
closed as off-topic by Kent A., Joel Etherton, David K, scaaahu, Jan Doggen Aug 5 '15 at 13:15
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "Questions seeking advice on company-specific regulations, agreements, or policies should be directed to your manager or HR department. Questions that address only a specific company or position are of limited use to future visitors. Questions seeking legal advice should be directed to legal professionals. For more information, click here." – Kent A., Joel Etherton, David K, scaaahu, Jan Doggen
1
Unfortunately, this is a legal question, so it is likely to be closed as off-topic. But yes, non-compete agreements are more often included than not these days. Good luck getting anyone to agree to a 20 year non-compete, though. One more thought: success by secrecy never lasts. Eventually it boils down to staying ahead of your competition by continually getting better and delighting your customers, maintaining their loyalty.
– Kent A.
Aug 5 '15 at 12:45
1
Don't think legal advice can given here, but only an idiot would sign a contract like that anyway.
– DavidB
Aug 5 '15 at 12:45
@KentAnderson Apologies, it's my first question to this community. I wasn't aware that discussions on employment laws were forbidden.
– Clarus Dignus
Aug 5 '15 at 13:14
@DavidB Thanks for sharing your insight though you're comment reads a little reactive and assumptive. I don't believe opting into an overtly substantial salary guaranteed across a long-term employment period (decades rather than years) for a company that favors to reeducate rather than fire is to unequivocally be considered a marker of idiocy. Furthermore, many enterprises fall under such specific niches that such a contract wouldn't always limit the employee from continuing working in the field they've been educated for.
– Clarus Dignus
Aug 5 '15 at 13:23
1
@ClarusDignus, your real problem is that people actually will sign contracts with ridiculous terms because they're more-often-than-not just "boilerplate" and they don't think anyone (especially small business) would attempt to enforce a "forever" contract. Also, if you do choose to go after a former employee for something ridiculous you risk injuring your reputation and preventing yourself from being able to hire top-people (the risk to you is more than just losing).
– teego1967
Aug 5 '15 at 13:33
 |Â
show 9 more comments
up vote
-1
down vote
favorite
up vote
-1
down vote
favorite
In contractual terms, before employment even begins, can an employer prevent a employee from branching off and:
- directly competing against the employer's company by forming a similar company of their own.
- indirectly competing against the employer's company by commencing work for an company that directly or indirectly competes against it.
E.g. A twenty year "cooling off" period or indefinitely.
My intention is to prevent the internal dynamics of my company, methodologies that I've arduously refined over the past decade, from being used against me by second parties or disclosed to third parties.
My understanding is that a contract is an agreement that must be legally honored once signed irrespective of the terms so long as they're fairly communicated.
contracts employment-agreement employment
asked Aug 5 '15 at 12:38
Clarus Dignus
1073
In contractual terms, before employment even begins, can an employer prevent a employee from branching off and:
- directly competing against the employer's company by forming a similar company of their own.
- indirectly competing against the employer's company by commencing work for an company that directly or indirectly competes against it.
E.g. A twenty year "cooling off" period or indefinitely.
My intention is to prevent the internal dynamics of my company, methodologies that I've arduously refined over the past decade, from being used against me by second parties or disclosed to third parties.
My understanding is that a contract is an agreement that must be legally honored once signed irrespective of the terms so long as they're fairly communicated.
contracts employment-agreement employment
asked Aug 5 '15 at 12:38
Clarus Dignus
1073
asked Aug 5 '15 at 12:38
Clarus Dignus
1073
asked Aug 5 '15 at 12:38
Clarus Dignus
1073
asked Aug 5 '15 at 12:38
Clarus Dignus
1073
1073
closed as off-topic by Kent A., Joel Etherton, David K, scaaahu, Jan Doggen Aug 5 '15 at 13:15
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "Questions seeking advice on company-specific regulations, agreements, or policies should be directed to your manager or HR department. Questions that address only a specific company or position are of limited use to future visitors. Questions seeking legal advice should be directed to legal professionals. For more information, click here." – Kent A., Joel Etherton, David K, scaaahu, Jan Doggen
closed as off-topic by Kent A., Joel Etherton, David K, scaaahu, Jan Doggen Aug 5 '15 at 13:15
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "Questions seeking advice on company-specific regulations, agreements, or policies should be directed to your manager or HR department. Questions that address only a specific company or position are of limited use to future visitors. Questions seeking legal advice should be directed to legal professionals. For more information, click here." – Kent A., Joel Etherton, David K, scaaahu, Jan Doggen
1
Unfortunately, this is a legal question, so it is likely to be closed as off-topic. But yes, non-compete agreements are more often included than not these days. Good luck getting anyone to agree to a 20 year non-compete, though. One more thought: success by secrecy never lasts. Eventually it boils down to staying ahead of your competition by continually getting better and delighting your customers, maintaining their loyalty.
– Kent A.
Aug 5 '15 at 12:45
1
Don't think legal advice can given here, but only an idiot would sign a contract like that anyway.
– DavidB
Aug 5 '15 at 12:45
@KentAnderson Apologies, it's my first question to this community. I wasn't aware that discussions on employment laws were forbidden.
– Clarus Dignus
Aug 5 '15 at 13:14
@DavidB Thanks for sharing your insight though you're comment reads a little reactive and assumptive. I don't believe opting into an overtly substantial salary guaranteed across a long-term employment period (decades rather than years) for a company that favors to reeducate rather than fire is to unequivocally be considered a marker of idiocy. Furthermore, many enterprises fall under such specific niches that such a contract wouldn't always limit the employee from continuing working in the field they've been educated for.
– Clarus Dignus
Aug 5 '15 at 13:23
1
@ClarusDignus, your real problem is that people actually will sign contracts with ridiculous terms because they're more-often-than-not just "boilerplate" and they don't think anyone (especially small business) would attempt to enforce a "forever" contract. Also, if you do choose to go after a former employee for something ridiculous you risk injuring your reputation and preventing yourself from being able to hire top-people (the risk to you is more than just losing).
– teego1967
Aug 5 '15 at 13:33
 |Â
show 9 more comments
1
Unfortunately, this is a legal question, so it is likely to be closed as off-topic. But yes, non-compete agreements are more often included than not these days. Good luck getting anyone to agree to a 20 year non-compete, though. One more thought: success by secrecy never lasts. Eventually it boils down to staying ahead of your competition by continually getting better and delighting your customers, maintaining their loyalty.
– Kent A.
Aug 5 '15 at 12:45
1
Don't think legal advice can given here, but only an idiot would sign a contract like that anyway.
– DavidB
Aug 5 '15 at 12:45
@KentAnderson Apologies, it's my first question to this community. I wasn't aware that discussions on employment laws were forbidden.
– Clarus Dignus
Aug 5 '15 at 13:14
@DavidB Thanks for sharing your insight though you're comment reads a little reactive and assumptive. I don't believe opting into an overtly substantial salary guaranteed across a long-term employment period (decades rather than years) for a company that favors to reeducate rather than fire is to unequivocally be considered a marker of idiocy. Furthermore, many enterprises fall under such specific niches that such a contract wouldn't always limit the employee from continuing working in the field they've been educated for.
– Clarus Dignus
Aug 5 '15 at 13:23
1
@ClarusDignus, your real problem is that people actually will sign contracts with ridiculous terms because they're more-often-than-not just "boilerplate" and they don't think anyone (especially small business) would attempt to enforce a "forever" contract. Also, if you do choose to go after a former employee for something ridiculous you risk injuring your reputation and preventing yourself from being able to hire top-people (the risk to you is more than just losing).
– teego1967
Aug 5 '15 at 13:33
1
1
Unfortunately, this is a legal question, so it is likely to be closed as off-topic. But yes, non-compete agreements are more often included than not these days. Good luck getting anyone to agree to a 20 year non-compete, though. One more thought: success by secrecy never lasts. Eventually it boils down to staying ahead of your competition by continually getting better and delighting your customers, maintaining their loyalty.
– Kent A.
Aug 5 '15 at 12:45
Unfortunately, this is a legal question, so it is likely to be closed as off-topic. But yes, non-compete agreements are more often included than not these days. Good luck getting anyone to agree to a 20 year non-compete, though. One more thought: success by secrecy never lasts. Eventually it boils down to staying ahead of your competition by continually getting better and delighting your customers, maintaining their loyalty.
– Kent A.
Aug 5 '15 at 12:45
1
1
Don't think legal advice can given here, but only an idiot would sign a contract like that anyway.
– DavidB
Aug 5 '15 at 12:45
Don't think legal advice can given here, but only an idiot would sign a contract like that anyway.
– DavidB
Aug 5 '15 at 12:45
@KentAnderson Apologies, it's my first question to this community. I wasn't aware that discussions on employment laws were forbidden.
– Clarus Dignus
Aug 5 '15 at 13:14
@KentAnderson Apologies, it's my first question to this community. I wasn't aware that discussions on employment laws were forbidden.
– Clarus Dignus
Aug 5 '15 at 13:14
@DavidB Thanks for sharing your insight though you're comment reads a little reactive and assumptive. I don't believe opting into an overtly substantial salary guaranteed across a long-term employment period (decades rather than years) for a company that favors to reeducate rather than fire is to unequivocally be considered a marker of idiocy. Furthermore, many enterprises fall under such specific niches that such a contract wouldn't always limit the employee from continuing working in the field they've been educated for.
– Clarus Dignus
Aug 5 '15 at 13:23
@DavidB Thanks for sharing your insight though you're comment reads a little reactive and assumptive. I don't believe opting into an overtly substantial salary guaranteed across a long-term employment period (decades rather than years) for a company that favors to reeducate rather than fire is to unequivocally be considered a marker of idiocy. Furthermore, many enterprises fall under such specific niches that such a contract wouldn't always limit the employee from continuing working in the field they've been educated for.
– Clarus Dignus
Aug 5 '15 at 13:23
1
1
@ClarusDignus, your real problem is that people actually will sign contracts with ridiculous terms because they're more-often-than-not just "boilerplate" and they don't think anyone (especially small business) would attempt to enforce a "forever" contract. Also, if you do choose to go after a former employee for something ridiculous you risk injuring your reputation and preventing yourself from being able to hire top-people (the risk to you is more than just losing).
– teego1967
Aug 5 '15 at 13:33
@ClarusDignus, your real problem is that people actually will sign contracts with ridiculous terms because they're more-often-than-not just "boilerplate" and they don't think anyone (especially small business) would attempt to enforce a "forever" contract. Also, if you do choose to go after a former employee for something ridiculous you risk injuring your reputation and preventing yourself from being able to hire top-people (the risk to you is more than just losing).
– teego1967
Aug 5 '15 at 13:33
 |Â
show 9 more comments
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
up vote
6
down vote
accepted
can an employer prevent a employee from branching off and directly
competing against the employer's company by forming a similar company
of their own or indirectly competing against the employer's company by
commencing work for an company that directly or indirectly competes
against it.
You can almost certainly achieve these two goals by writing a strong Non-Compete Agreement that potential employees must sign before being hired.
It's important to consult an attorney with employment expertise first, as the labor laws vary by locale and can be affected by industry practices, union requirements, etc. Don't try this on your own, or you have a much higher chance of failure.
And beware, even with a strong Non-Compete in place, they are only as good as your willingness to pursue folks who break them in court. That's not a quick or inexpensive process. Make sure it's worth your while.
E.g. A twenty year "cooling off" period or indefinitely.
Twenty years or indefinitely are far, far less likely to be achievable. I don't think I've ever seen a Non-Compete that specified twenty years, an I know I've never seen one designed to last indefinitely. The courts (at least in the US) don't like to prevent people from being able to work in their chosen profession.
My intention is to prevent the internal dynamics of my company,
methodologies that I've arduously refined over the past decade, from
being used against me by second parties or disclosed to third parties.
You should talk with your corporate attorney. Explain what you are trying to achieve, and ask how best to get there.
You may need to bolster yourself with patents, trademarks, service marks, etc.
And based on your statement above, you almost certainly want a Non-Disclosure Agreement written as well.
My understanding is that a contract is an agreement that must be
legally honored once signed irrespective of the terms so long as
they're fairly communicated.
That's not quite the case.
Again, an attorney can explain the details that must be part of your contractual agreement that will make it valid in your locale and your context. Just being "fairly communicated" isn't likely to be sufficient.
answered Aug 5 '15 at 13:15
Joe Strazzere
223k106656921
Thanks for adopting an open-mind towards my objective and for outlining measures by which it may be achievable, especially so when my question seems to have invoked a level of threat or offense to other members in the garnered responses. Regarding your comment on my pursuance of contractual violations, it is my ambition to legally oblige former employees to disclose the companies they work for and the nature of their roles during the non-compete period. I expect to know with absolutism rather than stumble across violations by happenstance. Is this expectation beyond the realm of possibility?
– Clarus Dignus
Aug 5 '15 at 14:21
I'm not in any way opposed to procuring legal counsel and indeed will. The insights I've received from this community, though in no way a substitute for formally obtained information, are no less valuable to me.
– Clarus Dignus
Aug 5 '15 at 16:51
suggest improvements |Â
up vote
5
down vote
I am not an attorney but this is false
My understanding is that a contract is an agreement that must be
legally honored once signed irrespective of the terms so long as
they're fairly communicated.
You could get them to sign away their first born son - you still can't enforce it. If they signed it under duress it may not be enforceable.
A contract has limits. A non compete must be specific and must have a reasonable duration. 20 years is not reasonable.
As for disclosure to a 3rd party a non-compete is not going to cover that. You need a non-disclosure agreement. Unless your methodologies are unique you can't really protect them.
What about the employees you had over the past decade? Is it your intent to force existing employees to sign a non-compete? You should talk to a layer. A contract you draft is likely to not be enforceable.
edited Aug 5 '15 at 16:19
Marv Mills
4,3831729
answered Aug 5 '15 at 13:13
paparazzo
33.3k657106
Contextually, my question is with respects to the formation of new company. I'm not resistant towards the notion of procuring a lawyer on this matter. When you say twenty years is not reasonable, what's the most ubiquitous/conventional non-compete period of time. I'm curious to know what you're contrasting the twenty years against (or is your deduction simply a matter of commons sense?). Thank you for additionally incorporating non-disclosure agreements and their perquisites into your answer.
– Clarus Dignus
Aug 5 '15 at 13:45
1
Again I am not an attorney but you cannot restrict someone from practicing their trade even if you trained them. The idea is they cannot immediately take clients. The cool off period is like 6 months to 2 years. And my understanding is if you lay them off then the non-compete is gone.
– paparazzo
Aug 5 '15 at 14:31
Thank you for the additional context. I wasn't expecting the non-compete durational norm to be so low.
– Clarus Dignus
Aug 5 '15 at 14:36
1
@ClarusDignus Fair enough. 3) 2x or 3x the salary that competitors pay - will put you out of business. I would not be enticed by it. It would worry me that I'd be shackling myself to a "visionary" who doesn't have a shred of business sense.
– Kent A.
Aug 5 '15 at 17:00
1
@ClarusDignus That is a lot of darn ifs. Really you are prepared to pay someone two times the current salary and offer a 10 year employment contract? If what you you have is that unique then get a patent on it.
– paparazzo
Aug 5 '15 at 17:00
 |Â
show 5 more comments
up vote
4
down vote
This question is going to be closed because it really is, at heart, a legal question.
But your last sentence needs a reality check:
My understanding is that a contract is an agreement that must be
legally honored once signed irrespective of the terms so long as
they're fairly communicated.
The "must be legally honored" part depends strictly on you. It means you must hire a lawyer at a great cost and go after violators, and then you'll have indeterminate outcomes in the best possible scenario. As far as "irrespective of the terms" goes, you can put whatever you want, but if the terms are ridiculous forget about ever enforcing anything.
If you want to have a non-compete agreement, draft one up with the advice of a lawyer. Take a look at court records to see what the outcomes of these things are before you try to have "20 year or forever" (snicker) time limits in your non-compete.
Also, keep in mind that some of the best companies in history were formed when employees "branched off as a competitors".
answered Aug 5 '15 at 12:46
teego1967
10.3k42845
1
+1 judges (at least in the US) can invalidate any part of any contract. They will do so when the clauses violate laws, or are so unreasonable as to prevent a person from earning a living in their chosen field.
– Kent A.
Aug 5 '15 at 12:50
Thanks for outlining a plan of research on my behalf. Clearly, I need to preemptively research what laws the intended term of my non-compete might contravene and yes, finding court precedents is a solid idea. What meaning should I construe from the facetious "snicker"? Is it that you believe my expectation is unattainable or unfair? Regarding your last sentence, that my friend, is exactly what I'm attempting to prevent. My strategic concern is my company's proliferation.
– Clarus Dignus
Aug 5 '15 at 13:38
2
@ClarusDignus, yes, the (snicker) was intentional and meant to indicate that you need a reality check. Your expectation is laughably an over-reach, it almost sounds like an attempt at humor. You should look carefully at non-competes that have succeeded and which have failed to get an idea of what is practical (and that is only after serious legal expense).
– teego1967
Aug 5 '15 at 13:48
Thanks for your directness, your insights and for setting an cursory expectation of significant cost.
– Clarus Dignus
Aug 5 '15 at 14:10
suggest improvements |Â
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
6
down vote
accepted
can an employer prevent a employee from branching off and directly
competing against the employer's company by forming a similar company
of their own or indirectly competing against the employer's company by
commencing work for an company that directly or indirectly competes
against it.
You can almost certainly achieve these two goals by writing a strong Non-Compete Agreement that potential employees must sign before being hired.
It's important to consult an attorney with employment expertise first, as the labor laws vary by locale and can be affected by industry practices, union requirements, etc. Don't try this on your own, or you have a much higher chance of failure.
And beware, even with a strong Non-Compete in place, they are only as good as your willingness to pursue folks who break them in court. That's not a quick or inexpensive process. Make sure it's worth your while.
E.g. A twenty year "cooling off" period or indefinitely.
Twenty years or indefinitely are far, far less likely to be achievable. I don't think I've ever seen a Non-Compete that specified twenty years, an I know I've never seen one designed to last indefinitely. The courts (at least in the US) don't like to prevent people from being able to work in their chosen profession.
My intention is to prevent the internal dynamics of my company,
methodologies that I've arduously refined over the past decade, from
being used against me by second parties or disclosed to third parties.
You should talk with your corporate attorney. Explain what you are trying to achieve, and ask how best to get there.
You may need to bolster yourself with patents, trademarks, service marks, etc.
And based on your statement above, you almost certainly want a Non-Disclosure Agreement written as well.
My understanding is that a contract is an agreement that must be
legally honored once signed irrespective of the terms so long as
they're fairly communicated.
That's not quite the case.
Again, an attorney can explain the details that must be part of your contractual agreement that will make it valid in your locale and your context. Just being "fairly communicated" isn't likely to be sufficient.
answered Aug 5 '15 at 13:15
Joe Strazzere
223k106656921
Thanks for adopting an open-mind towards my objective and for outlining measures by which it may be achievable, especially so when my question seems to have invoked a level of threat or offense to other members in the garnered responses. Regarding your comment on my pursuance of contractual violations, it is my ambition to legally oblige former employees to disclose the companies they work for and the nature of their roles during the non-compete period. I expect to know with absolutism rather than stumble across violations by happenstance. Is this expectation beyond the realm of possibility?
– Clarus Dignus
Aug 5 '15 at 14:21
I'm not in any way opposed to procuring legal counsel and indeed will. The insights I've received from this community, though in no way a substitute for formally obtained information, are no less valuable to me.
– Clarus Dignus
Aug 5 '15 at 16:51
suggest improvements |Â
up vote
6
down vote
accepted
can an employer prevent a employee from branching off and directly
competing against the employer's company by forming a similar company
of their own or indirectly competing against the employer's company by
commencing work for an company that directly or indirectly competes
against it.
You can almost certainly achieve these two goals by writing a strong Non-Compete Agreement that potential employees must sign before being hired.
It's important to consult an attorney with employment expertise first, as the labor laws vary by locale and can be affected by industry practices, union requirements, etc. Don't try this on your own, or you have a much higher chance of failure.
And beware, even with a strong Non-Compete in place, they are only as good as your willingness to pursue folks who break them in court. That's not a quick or inexpensive process. Make sure it's worth your while.
E.g. A twenty year "cooling off" period or indefinitely.
Twenty years or indefinitely are far, far less likely to be achievable. I don't think I've ever seen a Non-Compete that specified twenty years, an I know I've never seen one designed to last indefinitely. The courts (at least in the US) don't like to prevent people from being able to work in their chosen profession.
My intention is to prevent the internal dynamics of my company,
methodologies that I've arduously refined over the past decade, from
being used against me by second parties or disclosed to third parties.
You should talk with your corporate attorney. Explain what you are trying to achieve, and ask how best to get there.
You may need to bolster yourself with patents, trademarks, service marks, etc.
And based on your statement above, you almost certainly want a Non-Disclosure Agreement written as well.
My understanding is that a contract is an agreement that must be
legally honored once signed irrespective of the terms so long as
they're fairly communicated.
That's not quite the case.
Again, an attorney can explain the details that must be part of your contractual agreement that will make it valid in your locale and your context. Just being "fairly communicated" isn't likely to be sufficient.
answered Aug 5 '15 at 13:15
Joe Strazzere
223k106656921
Thanks for adopting an open-mind towards my objective and for outlining measures by which it may be achievable, especially so when my question seems to have invoked a level of threat or offense to other members in the garnered responses. Regarding your comment on my pursuance of contractual violations, it is my ambition to legally oblige former employees to disclose the companies they work for and the nature of their roles during the non-compete period. I expect to know with absolutism rather than stumble across violations by happenstance. Is this expectation beyond the realm of possibility?
– Clarus Dignus
Aug 5 '15 at 14:21
I'm not in any way opposed to procuring legal counsel and indeed will. The insights I've received from this community, though in no way a substitute for formally obtained information, are no less valuable to me.
– Clarus Dignus
Aug 5 '15 at 16:51
suggest improvements |Â
up vote
6
down vote
accepted
up vote
6
down vote
accepted
can an employer prevent a employee from branching off and directly
competing against the employer's company by forming a similar company
of their own or indirectly competing against the employer's company by
commencing work for an company that directly or indirectly competes
against it.
You can almost certainly achieve these two goals by writing a strong Non-Compete Agreement that potential employees must sign before being hired.
It's important to consult an attorney with employment expertise first, as the labor laws vary by locale and can be affected by industry practices, union requirements, etc. Don't try this on your own, or you have a much higher chance of failure.
And beware, even with a strong Non-Compete in place, they are only as good as your willingness to pursue folks who break them in court. That's not a quick or inexpensive process. Make sure it's worth your while.
E.g. A twenty year "cooling off" period or indefinitely.
Twenty years or indefinitely are far, far less likely to be achievable. I don't think I've ever seen a Non-Compete that specified twenty years, an I know I've never seen one designed to last indefinitely. The courts (at least in the US) don't like to prevent people from being able to work in their chosen profession.
My intention is to prevent the internal dynamics of my company,
methodologies that I've arduously refined over the past decade, from
being used against me by second parties or disclosed to third parties.
You should talk with your corporate attorney. Explain what you are trying to achieve, and ask how best to get there.
You may need to bolster yourself with patents, trademarks, service marks, etc.
And based on your statement above, you almost certainly want a Non-Disclosure Agreement written as well.
My understanding is that a contract is an agreement that must be
legally honored once signed irrespective of the terms so long as
they're fairly communicated.
That's not quite the case.
Again, an attorney can explain the details that must be part of your contractual agreement that will make it valid in your locale and your context. Just being "fairly communicated" isn't likely to be sufficient.
answered Aug 5 '15 at 13:15
Joe Strazzere
223k106656921
can an employer prevent a employee from branching off and directly
competing against the employer's company by forming a similar company
of their own or indirectly competing against the employer's company by
commencing work for an company that directly or indirectly competes
against it.
You can almost certainly achieve these two goals by writing a strong Non-Compete Agreement that potential employees must sign before being hired.
It's important to consult an attorney with employment expertise first, as the labor laws vary by locale and can be affected by industry practices, union requirements, etc. Don't try this on your own, or you have a much higher chance of failure.
And beware, even with a strong Non-Compete in place, they are only as good as your willingness to pursue folks who break them in court. That's not a quick or inexpensive process. Make sure it's worth your while.
E.g. A twenty year "cooling off" period or indefinitely.
Twenty years or indefinitely are far, far less likely to be achievable. I don't think I've ever seen a Non-Compete that specified twenty years, an I know I've never seen one designed to last indefinitely. The courts (at least in the US) don't like to prevent people from being able to work in their chosen profession.
My intention is to prevent the internal dynamics of my company,
methodologies that I've arduously refined over the past decade, from
being used against me by second parties or disclosed to third parties.
You should talk with your corporate attorney. Explain what you are trying to achieve, and ask how best to get there.
You may need to bolster yourself with patents, trademarks, service marks, etc.
And based on your statement above, you almost certainly want a Non-Disclosure Agreement written as well.
My understanding is that a contract is an agreement that must be
legally honored once signed irrespective of the terms so long as
they're fairly communicated.
That's not quite the case.
Again, an attorney can explain the details that must be part of your contractual agreement that will make it valid in your locale and your context. Just being "fairly communicated" isn't likely to be sufficient.
answered Aug 5 '15 at 13:15
Joe Strazzere
223k106656921
edited Aug 5 '15 at 13:20
answered Aug 5 '15 at 13:15
Joe Strazzere
223k106656921
answered Aug 5 '15 at 13:15
Joe Strazzere
223k106656921
answered Aug 5 '15 at 13:15
Joe Strazzere
223k106656921
223k106656921
Thanks for adopting an open-mind towards my objective and for outlining measures by which it may be achievable, especially so when my question seems to have invoked a level of threat or offense to other members in the garnered responses. Regarding your comment on my pursuance of contractual violations, it is my ambition to legally oblige former employees to disclose the companies they work for and the nature of their roles during the non-compete period. I expect to know with absolutism rather than stumble across violations by happenstance. Is this expectation beyond the realm of possibility?
– Clarus Dignus
Aug 5 '15 at 14:21
I'm not in any way opposed to procuring legal counsel and indeed will. The insights I've received from this community, though in no way a substitute for formally obtained information, are no less valuable to me.
– Clarus Dignus
Aug 5 '15 at 16:51
suggest improvements |Â
Thanks for adopting an open-mind towards my objective and for outlining measures by which it may be achievable, especially so when my question seems to have invoked a level of threat or offense to other members in the garnered responses. Regarding your comment on my pursuance of contractual violations, it is my ambition to legally oblige former employees to disclose the companies they work for and the nature of their roles during the non-compete period. I expect to know with absolutism rather than stumble across violations by happenstance. Is this expectation beyond the realm of possibility?
– Clarus Dignus
Aug 5 '15 at 14:21
I'm not in any way opposed to procuring legal counsel and indeed will. The insights I've received from this community, though in no way a substitute for formally obtained information, are no less valuable to me.
– Clarus Dignus
Aug 5 '15 at 16:51
Thanks for adopting an open-mind towards my objective and for outlining measures by which it may be achievable, especially so when my question seems to have invoked a level of threat or offense to other members in the garnered responses. Regarding your comment on my pursuance of contractual violations, it is my ambition to legally oblige former employees to disclose the companies they work for and the nature of their roles during the non-compete period. I expect to know with absolutism rather than stumble across violations by happenstance. Is this expectation beyond the realm of possibility?
– Clarus Dignus
Aug 5 '15 at 14:21
Thanks for adopting an open-mind towards my objective and for outlining measures by which it may be achievable, especially so when my question seems to have invoked a level of threat or offense to other members in the garnered responses. Regarding your comment on my pursuance of contractual violations, it is my ambition to legally oblige former employees to disclose the companies they work for and the nature of their roles during the non-compete period. I expect to know with absolutism rather than stumble across violations by happenstance. Is this expectation beyond the realm of possibility?
– Clarus Dignus
Aug 5 '15 at 14:21
I'm not in any way opposed to procuring legal counsel and indeed will. The insights I've received from this community, though in no way a substitute for formally obtained information, are no less valuable to me.
– Clarus Dignus
Aug 5 '15 at 16:51
I'm not in any way opposed to procuring legal counsel and indeed will. The insights I've received from this community, though in no way a substitute for formally obtained information, are no less valuable to me.
– Clarus Dignus
Aug 5 '15 at 16:51
suggest improvements |Â
up vote
5
down vote
I am not an attorney but this is false
My understanding is that a contract is an agreement that must be
legally honored once signed irrespective of the terms so long as
they're fairly communicated.
You could get them to sign away their first born son - you still can't enforce it. If they signed it under duress it may not be enforceable.
A contract has limits. A non compete must be specific and must have a reasonable duration. 20 years is not reasonable.
As for disclosure to a 3rd party a non-compete is not going to cover that. You need a non-disclosure agreement. Unless your methodologies are unique you can't really protect them.
What about the employees you had over the past decade? Is it your intent to force existing employees to sign a non-compete? You should talk to a layer. A contract you draft is likely to not be enforceable.
edited Aug 5 '15 at 16:19
Marv Mills
4,3831729
answered Aug 5 '15 at 13:13
paparazzo
33.3k657106
Contextually, my question is with respects to the formation of new company. I'm not resistant towards the notion of procuring a lawyer on this matter. When you say twenty years is not reasonable, what's the most ubiquitous/conventional non-compete period of time. I'm curious to know what you're contrasting the twenty years against (or is your deduction simply a matter of commons sense?). Thank you for additionally incorporating non-disclosure agreements and their perquisites into your answer.
– Clarus Dignus
Aug 5 '15 at 13:45
1
Again I am not an attorney but you cannot restrict someone from practicing their trade even if you trained them. The idea is they cannot immediately take clients. The cool off period is like 6 months to 2 years. And my understanding is if you lay them off then the non-compete is gone.
– paparazzo
Aug 5 '15 at 14:31
Thank you for the additional context. I wasn't expecting the non-compete durational norm to be so low.
– Clarus Dignus
Aug 5 '15 at 14:36
1
@ClarusDignus Fair enough. 3) 2x or 3x the salary that competitors pay - will put you out of business. I would not be enticed by it. It would worry me that I'd be shackling myself to a "visionary" who doesn't have a shred of business sense.
– Kent A.
Aug 5 '15 at 17:00
1
@ClarusDignus That is a lot of darn ifs. Really you are prepared to pay someone two times the current salary and offer a 10 year employment contract? If what you you have is that unique then get a patent on it.
– paparazzo
Aug 5 '15 at 17:00
 |Â
show 5 more comments
up vote
5
down vote
I am not an attorney but this is false
My understanding is that a contract is an agreement that must be
legally honored once signed irrespective of the terms so long as
they're fairly communicated.
You could get them to sign away their first born son - you still can't enforce it. If they signed it under duress it may not be enforceable.
A contract has limits. A non compete must be specific and must have a reasonable duration. 20 years is not reasonable.
As for disclosure to a 3rd party a non-compete is not going to cover that. You need a non-disclosure agreement. Unless your methodologies are unique you can't really protect them.
What about the employees you had over the past decade? Is it your intent to force existing employees to sign a non-compete? You should talk to a layer. A contract you draft is likely to not be enforceable.
edited Aug 5 '15 at 16:19
Marv Mills
4,3831729
answered Aug 5 '15 at 13:13
paparazzo
33.3k657106
Contextually, my question is with respects to the formation of new company. I'm not resistant towards the notion of procuring a lawyer on this matter. When you say twenty years is not reasonable, what's the most ubiquitous/conventional non-compete period of time. I'm curious to know what you're contrasting the twenty years against (or is your deduction simply a matter of commons sense?). Thank you for additionally incorporating non-disclosure agreements and their perquisites into your answer.
– Clarus Dignus
Aug 5 '15 at 13:45
1
Again I am not an attorney but you cannot restrict someone from practicing their trade even if you trained them. The idea is they cannot immediately take clients. The cool off period is like 6 months to 2 years. And my understanding is if you lay them off then the non-compete is gone.
– paparazzo
Aug 5 '15 at 14:31
Thank you for the additional context. I wasn't expecting the non-compete durational norm to be so low.
– Clarus Dignus
Aug 5 '15 at 14:36
1
@ClarusDignus Fair enough. 3) 2x or 3x the salary that competitors pay - will put you out of business. I would not be enticed by it. It would worry me that I'd be shackling myself to a "visionary" who doesn't have a shred of business sense.
– Kent A.
Aug 5 '15 at 17:00
1
@ClarusDignus That is a lot of darn ifs. Really you are prepared to pay someone two times the current salary and offer a 10 year employment contract? If what you you have is that unique then get a patent on it.
– paparazzo
Aug 5 '15 at 17:00
 |Â
show 5 more comments
up vote
5
down vote
up vote
5
down vote
I am not an attorney but this is false
My understanding is that a contract is an agreement that must be
legally honored once signed irrespective of the terms so long as
they're fairly communicated.
You could get them to sign away their first born son - you still can't enforce it. If they signed it under duress it may not be enforceable.
A contract has limits. A non compete must be specific and must have a reasonable duration. 20 years is not reasonable.
As for disclosure to a 3rd party a non-compete is not going to cover that. You need a non-disclosure agreement. Unless your methodologies are unique you can't really protect them.
What about the employees you had over the past decade? Is it your intent to force existing employees to sign a non-compete? You should talk to a layer. A contract you draft is likely to not be enforceable.
edited Aug 5 '15 at 16:19
Marv Mills
4,3831729
answered Aug 5 '15 at 13:13
paparazzo
33.3k657106
I am not an attorney but this is false
My understanding is that a contract is an agreement that must be
legally honored once signed irrespective of the terms so long as
they're fairly communicated.
You could get them to sign away their first born son - you still can't enforce it. If they signed it under duress it may not be enforceable.
A contract has limits. A non compete must be specific and must have a reasonable duration. 20 years is not reasonable.
As for disclosure to a 3rd party a non-compete is not going to cover that. You need a non-disclosure agreement. Unless your methodologies are unique you can't really protect them.
What about the employees you had over the past decade? Is it your intent to force existing employees to sign a non-compete? You should talk to a layer. A contract you draft is likely to not be enforceable.
edited Aug 5 '15 at 16:19
Marv Mills
4,3831729
answered Aug 5 '15 at 13:13
paparazzo
33.3k657106
edited Aug 5 '15 at 16:19
Marv Mills
4,3831729
edited Aug 5 '15 at 16:19
Marv Mills
4,3831729
edited Aug 5 '15 at 16:19
Marv Mills
4,3831729
4,3831729
answered Aug 5 '15 at 13:13
paparazzo
33.3k657106
answered Aug 5 '15 at 13:13
paparazzo
33.3k657106
answered Aug 5 '15 at 13:13
paparazzo
33.3k657106
33.3k657106
Contextually, my question is with respects to the formation of new company. I'm not resistant towards the notion of procuring a lawyer on this matter. When you say twenty years is not reasonable, what's the most ubiquitous/conventional non-compete period of time. I'm curious to know what you're contrasting the twenty years against (or is your deduction simply a matter of commons sense?). Thank you for additionally incorporating non-disclosure agreements and their perquisites into your answer.
– Clarus Dignus
Aug 5 '15 at 13:45
1
Again I am not an attorney but you cannot restrict someone from practicing their trade even if you trained them. The idea is they cannot immediately take clients. The cool off period is like 6 months to 2 years. And my understanding is if you lay them off then the non-compete is gone.
– paparazzo
Aug 5 '15 at 14:31
Thank you for the additional context. I wasn't expecting the non-compete durational norm to be so low.
– Clarus Dignus
Aug 5 '15 at 14:36
1
@ClarusDignus Fair enough. 3) 2x or 3x the salary that competitors pay - will put you out of business. I would not be enticed by it. It would worry me that I'd be shackling myself to a "visionary" who doesn't have a shred of business sense.
– Kent A.
Aug 5 '15 at 17:00
1
@ClarusDignus That is a lot of darn ifs. Really you are prepared to pay someone two times the current salary and offer a 10 year employment contract? If what you you have is that unique then get a patent on it.
– paparazzo
Aug 5 '15 at 17:00
 |Â
show 5 more comments
Contextually, my question is with respects to the formation of new company. I'm not resistant towards the notion of procuring a lawyer on this matter. When you say twenty years is not reasonable, what's the most ubiquitous/conventional non-compete period of time. I'm curious to know what you're contrasting the twenty years against (or is your deduction simply a matter of commons sense?). Thank you for additionally incorporating non-disclosure agreements and their perquisites into your answer.
– Clarus Dignus
Aug 5 '15 at 13:45
1
Again I am not an attorney but you cannot restrict someone from practicing their trade even if you trained them. The idea is they cannot immediately take clients. The cool off period is like 6 months to 2 years. And my understanding is if you lay them off then the non-compete is gone.
– paparazzo
Aug 5 '15 at 14:31
Thank you for the additional context. I wasn't expecting the non-compete durational norm to be so low.
– Clarus Dignus
Aug 5 '15 at 14:36
1
@ClarusDignus Fair enough. 3) 2x or 3x the salary that competitors pay - will put you out of business. I would not be enticed by it. It would worry me that I'd be shackling myself to a "visionary" who doesn't have a shred of business sense.
– Kent A.
Aug 5 '15 at 17:00
1
@ClarusDignus That is a lot of darn ifs. Really you are prepared to pay someone two times the current salary and offer a 10 year employment contract? If what you you have is that unique then get a patent on it.
– paparazzo
Aug 5 '15 at 17:00
Contextually, my question is with respects to the formation of new company. I'm not resistant towards the notion of procuring a lawyer on this matter. When you say twenty years is not reasonable, what's the most ubiquitous/conventional non-compete period of time. I'm curious to know what you're contrasting the twenty years against (or is your deduction simply a matter of commons sense?). Thank you for additionally incorporating non-disclosure agreements and their perquisites into your answer.
– Clarus Dignus
Aug 5 '15 at 13:45
Contextually, my question is with respects to the formation of new company. I'm not resistant towards the notion of procuring a lawyer on this matter. When you say twenty years is not reasonable, what's the most ubiquitous/conventional non-compete period of time. I'm curious to know what you're contrasting the twenty years against (or is your deduction simply a matter of commons sense?). Thank you for additionally incorporating non-disclosure agreements and their perquisites into your answer.
– Clarus Dignus
Aug 5 '15 at 13:45
1
1
Again I am not an attorney but you cannot restrict someone from practicing their trade even if you trained them. The idea is they cannot immediately take clients. The cool off period is like 6 months to 2 years. And my understanding is if you lay them off then the non-compete is gone.
– paparazzo
Aug 5 '15 at 14:31
Again I am not an attorney but you cannot restrict someone from practicing their trade even if you trained them. The idea is they cannot immediately take clients. The cool off period is like 6 months to 2 years. And my understanding is if you lay them off then the non-compete is gone.
– paparazzo
Aug 5 '15 at 14:31
Thank you for the additional context. I wasn't expecting the non-compete durational norm to be so low.
– Clarus Dignus
Aug 5 '15 at 14:36
Thank you for the additional context. I wasn't expecting the non-compete durational norm to be so low.
– Clarus Dignus
Aug 5 '15 at 14:36
1
1
@ClarusDignus Fair enough. 3) 2x or 3x the salary that competitors pay - will put you out of business. I would not be enticed by it. It would worry me that I'd be shackling myself to a "visionary" who doesn't have a shred of business sense.
– Kent A.
Aug 5 '15 at 17:00
@ClarusDignus Fair enough. 3) 2x or 3x the salary that competitors pay - will put you out of business. I would not be enticed by it. It would worry me that I'd be shackling myself to a "visionary" who doesn't have a shred of business sense.
– Kent A.
Aug 5 '15 at 17:00
1
1
@ClarusDignus That is a lot of darn ifs. Really you are prepared to pay someone two times the current salary and offer a 10 year employment contract? If what you you have is that unique then get a patent on it.
– paparazzo
Aug 5 '15 at 17:00
@ClarusDignus That is a lot of darn ifs. Really you are prepared to pay someone two times the current salary and offer a 10 year employment contract? If what you you have is that unique then get a patent on it.
– paparazzo
Aug 5 '15 at 17:00
 |Â
show 5 more comments
up vote
4
down vote
This question is going to be closed because it really is, at heart, a legal question.
But your last sentence needs a reality check:
My understanding is that a contract is an agreement that must be
legally honored once signed irrespective of the terms so long as
they're fairly communicated.
The "must be legally honored" part depends strictly on you. It means you must hire a lawyer at a great cost and go after violators, and then you'll have indeterminate outcomes in the best possible scenario. As far as "irrespective of the terms" goes, you can put whatever you want, but if the terms are ridiculous forget about ever enforcing anything.
If you want to have a non-compete agreement, draft one up with the advice of a lawyer. Take a look at court records to see what the outcomes of these things are before you try to have "20 year or forever" (snicker) time limits in your non-compete.
Also, keep in mind that some of the best companies in history were formed when employees "branched off as a competitors".
answered Aug 5 '15 at 12:46
teego1967
10.3k42845
1
+1 judges (at least in the US) can invalidate any part of any contract. They will do so when the clauses violate laws, or are so unreasonable as to prevent a person from earning a living in their chosen field.
– Kent A.
Aug 5 '15 at 12:50
Thanks for outlining a plan of research on my behalf. Clearly, I need to preemptively research what laws the intended term of my non-compete might contravene and yes, finding court precedents is a solid idea. What meaning should I construe from the facetious "snicker"? Is it that you believe my expectation is unattainable or unfair? Regarding your last sentence, that my friend, is exactly what I'm attempting to prevent. My strategic concern is my company's proliferation.
– Clarus Dignus
Aug 5 '15 at 13:38
2
@ClarusDignus, yes, the (snicker) was intentional and meant to indicate that you need a reality check. Your expectation is laughably an over-reach, it almost sounds like an attempt at humor. You should look carefully at non-competes that have succeeded and which have failed to get an idea of what is practical (and that is only after serious legal expense).
– teego1967
Aug 5 '15 at 13:48
Thanks for your directness, your insights and for setting an cursory expectation of significant cost.
– Clarus Dignus
Aug 5 '15 at 14:10
suggest improvements |Â
up vote
4
down vote
This question is going to be closed because it really is, at heart, a legal question.
But your last sentence needs a reality check:
My understanding is that a contract is an agreement that must be
legally honored once signed irrespective of the terms so long as
they're fairly communicated.
The "must be legally honored" part depends strictly on you. It means you must hire a lawyer at a great cost and go after violators, and then you'll have indeterminate outcomes in the best possible scenario. As far as "irrespective of the terms" goes, you can put whatever you want, but if the terms are ridiculous forget about ever enforcing anything.
If you want to have a non-compete agreement, draft one up with the advice of a lawyer. Take a look at court records to see what the outcomes of these things are before you try to have "20 year or forever" (snicker) time limits in your non-compete.
Also, keep in mind that some of the best companies in history were formed when employees "branched off as a competitors".
answered Aug 5 '15 at 12:46
teego1967
10.3k42845
1
+1 judges (at least in the US) can invalidate any part of any contract. They will do so when the clauses violate laws, or are so unreasonable as to prevent a person from earning a living in their chosen field.
– Kent A.
Aug 5 '15 at 12:50
Thanks for outlining a plan of research on my behalf. Clearly, I need to preemptively research what laws the intended term of my non-compete might contravene and yes, finding court precedents is a solid idea. What meaning should I construe from the facetious "snicker"? Is it that you believe my expectation is unattainable or unfair? Regarding your last sentence, that my friend, is exactly what I'm attempting to prevent. My strategic concern is my company's proliferation.
– Clarus Dignus
Aug 5 '15 at 13:38
2
@ClarusDignus, yes, the (snicker) was intentional and meant to indicate that you need a reality check. Your expectation is laughably an over-reach, it almost sounds like an attempt at humor. You should look carefully at non-competes that have succeeded and which have failed to get an idea of what is practical (and that is only after serious legal expense).
– teego1967
Aug 5 '15 at 13:48
Thanks for your directness, your insights and for setting an cursory expectation of significant cost.
– Clarus Dignus
Aug 5 '15 at 14:10
suggest improvements |Â
up vote
4
down vote
up vote
4
down vote
This question is going to be closed because it really is, at heart, a legal question.
But your last sentence needs a reality check:
My understanding is that a contract is an agreement that must be
legally honored once signed irrespective of the terms so long as
they're fairly communicated.
The "must be legally honored" part depends strictly on you. It means you must hire a lawyer at a great cost and go after violators, and then you'll have indeterminate outcomes in the best possible scenario. As far as "irrespective of the terms" goes, you can put whatever you want, but if the terms are ridiculous forget about ever enforcing anything.
If you want to have a non-compete agreement, draft one up with the advice of a lawyer. Take a look at court records to see what the outcomes of these things are before you try to have "20 year or forever" (snicker) time limits in your non-compete.
Also, keep in mind that some of the best companies in history were formed when employees "branched off as a competitors".
answered Aug 5 '15 at 12:46
teego1967
10.3k42845
This question is going to be closed because it really is, at heart, a legal question.
But your last sentence needs a reality check:
My understanding is that a contract is an agreement that must be
legally honored once signed irrespective of the terms so long as
they're fairly communicated.
The "must be legally honored" part depends strictly on you. It means you must hire a lawyer at a great cost and go after violators, and then you'll have indeterminate outcomes in the best possible scenario. As far as "irrespective of the terms" goes, you can put whatever you want, but if the terms are ridiculous forget about ever enforcing anything.
If you want to have a non-compete agreement, draft one up with the advice of a lawyer. Take a look at court records to see what the outcomes of these things are before you try to have "20 year or forever" (snicker) time limits in your non-compete.
Also, keep in mind that some of the best companies in history were formed when employees "branched off as a competitors".
answered Aug 5 '15 at 12:46
teego1967
10.3k42845
answered Aug 5 '15 at 12:46
teego1967
10.3k42845
answered Aug 5 '15 at 12:46
teego1967
10.3k42845
answered Aug 5 '15 at 12:46
teego1967
10.3k42845
10.3k42845
1
+1 judges (at least in the US) can invalidate any part of any contract. They will do so when the clauses violate laws, or are so unreasonable as to prevent a person from earning a living in their chosen field.
– Kent A.
Aug 5 '15 at 12:50
Thanks for outlining a plan of research on my behalf. Clearly, I need to preemptively research what laws the intended term of my non-compete might contravene and yes, finding court precedents is a solid idea. What meaning should I construe from the facetious "snicker"? Is it that you believe my expectation is unattainable or unfair? Regarding your last sentence, that my friend, is exactly what I'm attempting to prevent. My strategic concern is my company's proliferation.
– Clarus Dignus
Aug 5 '15 at 13:38
2
@ClarusDignus, yes, the (snicker) was intentional and meant to indicate that you need a reality check. Your expectation is laughably an over-reach, it almost sounds like an attempt at humor. You should look carefully at non-competes that have succeeded and which have failed to get an idea of what is practical (and that is only after serious legal expense).
– teego1967
Aug 5 '15 at 13:48
Thanks for your directness, your insights and for setting an cursory expectation of significant cost.
– Clarus Dignus
Aug 5 '15 at 14:10
suggest improvements |Â
1
+1 judges (at least in the US) can invalidate any part of any contract. They will do so when the clauses violate laws, or are so unreasonable as to prevent a person from earning a living in their chosen field.
– Kent A.
Aug 5 '15 at 12:50
Thanks for outlining a plan of research on my behalf. Clearly, I need to preemptively research what laws the intended term of my non-compete might contravene and yes, finding court precedents is a solid idea. What meaning should I construe from the facetious "snicker"? Is it that you believe my expectation is unattainable or unfair? Regarding your last sentence, that my friend, is exactly what I'm attempting to prevent. My strategic concern is my company's proliferation.
– Clarus Dignus
Aug 5 '15 at 13:38
2
@ClarusDignus, yes, the (snicker) was intentional and meant to indicate that you need a reality check. Your expectation is laughably an over-reach, it almost sounds like an attempt at humor. You should look carefully at non-competes that have succeeded and which have failed to get an idea of what is practical (and that is only after serious legal expense).
– teego1967
Aug 5 '15 at 13:48
Thanks for your directness, your insights and for setting an cursory expectation of significant cost.
– Clarus Dignus
Aug 5 '15 at 14:10
1
1
+1 judges (at least in the US) can invalidate any part of any contract. They will do so when the clauses violate laws, or are so unreasonable as to prevent a person from earning a living in their chosen field.
– Kent A.
Aug 5 '15 at 12:50
+1 judges (at least in the US) can invalidate any part of any contract. They will do so when the clauses violate laws, or are so unreasonable as to prevent a person from earning a living in their chosen field.
– Kent A.
Aug 5 '15 at 12:50
Thanks for outlining a plan of research on my behalf. Clearly, I need to preemptively research what laws the intended term of my non-compete might contravene and yes, finding court precedents is a solid idea. What meaning should I construe from the facetious "snicker"? Is it that you believe my expectation is unattainable or unfair? Regarding your last sentence, that my friend, is exactly what I'm attempting to prevent. My strategic concern is my company's proliferation.
– Clarus Dignus
Aug 5 '15 at 13:38
Thanks for outlining a plan of research on my behalf. Clearly, I need to preemptively research what laws the intended term of my non-compete might contravene and yes, finding court precedents is a solid idea. What meaning should I construe from the facetious "snicker"? Is it that you believe my expectation is unattainable or unfair? Regarding your last sentence, that my friend, is exactly what I'm attempting to prevent. My strategic concern is my company's proliferation.
– Clarus Dignus
Aug 5 '15 at 13:38
2
2
@ClarusDignus, yes, the (snicker) was intentional and meant to indicate that you need a reality check. Your expectation is laughably an over-reach, it almost sounds like an attempt at humor. You should look carefully at non-competes that have succeeded and which have failed to get an idea of what is practical (and that is only after serious legal expense).
– teego1967
Aug 5 '15 at 13:48
@ClarusDignus, yes, the (snicker) was intentional and meant to indicate that you need a reality check. Your expectation is laughably an over-reach, it almost sounds like an attempt at humor. You should look carefully at non-competes that have succeeded and which have failed to get an idea of what is practical (and that is only after serious legal expense).
– teego1967
Aug 5 '15 at 13:48
Thanks for your directness, your insights and for setting an cursory expectation of significant cost.
– Clarus Dignus
Aug 5 '15 at 14:10
Thanks for your directness, your insights and for setting an cursory expectation of significant cost.
– Clarus Dignus
Aug 5 '15 at 14:10
suggest improvements |Â
1
Unfortunately, this is a legal question, so it is likely to be closed as off-topic. But yes, non-compete agreements are more often included than not these days. Good luck getting anyone to agree to a 20 year non-compete, though. One more thought: success by secrecy never lasts. Eventually it boils down to staying ahead of your competition by continually getting better and delighting your customers, maintaining their loyalty.
– Kent A.
Aug 5 '15 at 12:45
1
Don't think legal advice can given here, but only an idiot would sign a contract like that anyway.
– DavidB
Aug 5 '15 at 12:45
@KentAnderson Apologies, it's my first question to this community. I wasn't aware that discussions on employment laws were forbidden.
– Clarus Dignus
Aug 5 '15 at 13:14
@DavidB Thanks for sharing your insight though you're comment reads a little reactive and assumptive. I don't believe opting into an overtly substantial salary guaranteed across a long-term employment period (decades rather than years) for a company that favors to reeducate rather than fire is to unequivocally be considered a marker of idiocy. Furthermore, many enterprises fall under such specific niches that such a contract wouldn't always limit the employee from continuing working in the field they've been educated for.
– Clarus Dignus
Aug 5 '15 at 13:23
1
@ClarusDignus, your real problem is that people actually will sign contracts with ridiculous terms because they're more-often-than-not just "boilerplate" and they don't think anyone (especially small business) would attempt to enforce a "forever" contract. Also, if you do choose to go after a former employee for something ridiculous you risk injuring your reputation and preventing yourself from being able to hire top-people (the risk to you is more than just losing).
– teego1967
Aug 5 '15 at 13:33