BosyBillups Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Can you admit that if you > voluntarily agree not to compete based upon some > condition, that you will be bound by that? " You > are speaking as though one who enters into a > contract is entering it under durress, or > coercion,. fraud, etc. If this is the case, the > contract will be void. Did you know that, son? Man you didn’t understand the point. Contract is not enforceable theoretically in the court of law even if it has nothing to do with “duress, or coercion, fraud, etc” in case if that contract is against someone’s “natural” rights. I see you need further explanations. I can agree to be your slave (or your husband, whatever) voluntarily for 10 years. And in 5 years I will change my mind. You can’t enforce me to stay with you for another 5 years. Point is that contract may be quite legal if I do it voluntarily but the contract is not enforceable by law if I change my position. > Did you know that, son? Thank you father
i’m sorry, i’m slow. But isn’t the whole argument here whether the contract is JUST or Efficient? why are you guys equating this to slavery?
Frank, their point is that lawyers propogate slavery. We’re on our 8th page of seething lawyer hate…don’t slow us down dude.
i have never signed a non compete, but if a good job is offered to me and they request a non compete to be signed, i’ll sign it.
FrankArabia Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > i have never signed a non compete, but if a good > job is offered to me and they request a non > compete to be signed, i’ll sign it. You will f-ing write to me first.
FrankArabia Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > i’m sorry, i’m slow. But isn’t the whole argument > here whether the contract is JUST or Efficient? > > why are you guys equating this to slavery? The argument seems to be whether non-compete clauses should be enforceable, especially in respect to profession. It’s a given that non-competes promote economic efficiency are just and efficient through the promotion of private party agreements. >I see you need further explanations. I can agree to be your slave (or your husband, >whatever) voluntarily for 10 years. And in 5 years I will change my mind. You can’t >enforce me to stay with you for another 5 years. Uh, yes. Actually, you can agree to be my slave, but if you decide not to, I *can’t* go to the courts and ask them to force you to be my slave. This is not enforceable as it’s unreasonable and against public policy. >Point is that contract may be quite legal if I do it voluntarily but the contract is not >enforceable by law if I change my position. So, yes, the contract to be a slave may be a contract, but it’s not legally enforceable. But bring in the argument where you *voluntarily* agree that if you *decide* to work for an employer, you will not poach their clients. That friend, is enforceable by law.
Man I already explained legal issues here. Contract is not enforceable if it deprives some human being from his/her basic “natural” rights. And working in his/her field of expertise to make a living is a “natural” right. It has nothing to do with economic efficiency or economic fairness. Human rights are superior to economic rights. Period. What about ability to contact former clients? I’m not sure if it is a natural or derived right. I really have no solid opinion here.
>Uh, yes. Actually, you can agree to be my slave, but if you decide not to, I *can’t* go to the courts and ask them to force you to be my slave. This is not enforceable as it’s unreasonable and against public policy. No, it’s unenforceable because one can’t contract away Constitutionally guaranteed rights (life, liberty, right to vote, etc.) Lots of contracts are unreasonable and against public policy, but that’s just life.
DarienHacker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > >Uh, yes. Actually, you can agree to be my slave, > but if you decide not to, I *can’t* go to the > courts and ask them to force you to be my slave. > This is not enforceable as it’s unreasonable and > against public policy. > > No, it’s unenforceable because one can’t contract > away Constitutionally guaranteed rights (life, > liberty, right to vote, etc.) Lots of contracts > are unreasonable and against public policy, but > that’s just life. Yes, it’s unenforceable for many reasons, not just one. But the courts will decided what is reasonable and w/in public policy.
i thought a non compete contract stipulates that if you decided to quit, you cannot compete against them by starting your own business within a prespecified time. how is this slavery? the company is protecting their intellectual capital.
> No, it’s unenforceable because one can’t contract > away Constitutionally guaranteed rights (life, > liberty, right to vote, etc.) Lots of contracts > are unreasonable and against public policy, but > that’s just life. Also note that the constitution is to protect private individuals against the government. period. Private parties can agree, let’s say, to not bear arms in an office.
torontosimpleguy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What about ability to contact former clients? I’m > not sure if it is a natural or derived right. I > really have no solid opinion here. Btw, CFAI says that you can contact former clients as long as you didn’t take clients list from your ex-employer. So, that clause is not enforceable either. Logic is as follows. I didn’t take list so I don’t know for sure who were my former clients and I don’t remember that from my memory. So it is my ex-employer who has to prove that I should reasonably expect that some company was his client.
BosyBillups Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Also note that the constitution is to protect > private individuals against the government. > period. Private parties can agree, let’s say, to > not bear arms in an office. Not so for natural (or constitutional) rights. You can’t enforce me to sell you my kidney
Simpleton, do you think the CFAI code of ethics should supercede US common law? If so I’m with you and we should start a petition.
how is selling a kidney comparable to non compete? isn’t there something about a “reasonable” contract? non compete is reasonable. if someone offers you a 100k job but wants to make sure you don’t take their intellectual capital and run, isn’t that fair? i think so. the way i look at it is, if you don’t want to sign, don’t sign it. you won’t starve to death, you can always work at a discount brokerage and get welfare.
Extreme non-competes deprive the person of the ability to work and earn income. (Though Frank’s comfortable on welfare, that of course runs out after 6 months and then he starves.) That’s why unrestricted noncompetes aren’t allowed. [Noncompete is entirely separate from theft of IP, which is enforced separately. Ability to traffic in stolen property isn’t guaranteed by the Constitution, so it can be contracted away.] Different states have allowed partial noncompetes and contracts are continually probing the envelope; e.g. you can’t work within X miles of the former employer for Y months, and so on. If the employee can show that this essentially prohibits him from working then the contract will be thrown out. The latest wrinkle is gardening leave, which to some smacks of indentured servitude, but is nonetheless rapidly taking hold in NYC financial circles.
how do the people in the ghettos survive if welfare runs out after 6 months?
Exactly. And extreme non-competes usually are unreasonable, no? I think non-competes promote economic efficiency and jobs, b/c without them, employers would be very skeptical, if not paranoid, to hire anyone.
DarienHacker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Extreme non-competes deprive the person of the > ability to work and earn income. (Though Frank’s > comfortable on welfare, that of course runs out > after 6 months and then he starves.) That’s why > unrestricted noncompetes aren’t allowed. Constitution protects private individuals against government intrusion. We contract away our rights all the time, i.e., agree to an employer recording your e-mail/phone.
DarienHacker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Different states have allowed partial noncompetes > and contracts are continually probing the > envelope; e.g. you can’t work within X miles of > the former employer for Y months, and so on. If > the employee can show that this essentially > prohibits him from working then the contract will > be thrown out. I think it’s unreasonable. Person has to move to survive. Ex-employer has to pay him/her for inconvenience.