Man constitution doesn’t cover all unalienable rights
torontosimpleguy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Man constitution doesn’t cover all unalienable > rights Exactly. One of the fears of the framers was that some would think that the bill of rights were an all inclusive list of rights.
torontosimpleguy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think it’s unreasonable. Person has to move to > survive. Ex-employer has to pay him/her for > inconvenience. And this is decided by the court. Some courts may find this reasonable, some may not. It depends on the facts and circumstances. But at least we can agree that the non-compete clause is valid. Whether it’s reasonable/enforceable or not, depends on the outside factors, i.e., location, facts, clause, court, judge, jury, etc.
I was eating a bowl of cheerios this morning and on the back of the box there was a “law degree by mail” coupon.
BosyBillups Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But at least we can > agree that the non-compete clause is valid. It has to be reasonable (ok, here is some degree of freedom) and exhaustive. For example, all companies you can’t work for and all former clients you can’t contact in the future have to be enlisted.