Non-Compete Agreements

[Ken B]

I would check with your state. see if it's a right to work state.
Florida is a "right to work state" so those non compete agreements don't work here.
I agree with the Smokey the Bear, if he's not marketing in the area. I don't see any problem with you marketing yourself. Just don't go after his clients.

"Right to work" laws state that you are not required to belong to a union in order to work. It has nothing to do with this topic.

 

[Kevin Mc]

Consult an attorney. When I first started in this business many years ago my employer had me sign a non-compete clause. My father was an attorney, read it and told me no problem signing. He told me under no circumstances would it ever hold up in court (referred to it as a loaded gun to my head). Of course if you go out and solicit his clients immediately he may have a case. He cannot however stop form doing your chosen profession in his backyard.

 

[Scott Lanz]

This is really judgmental.

Yes, it is. I earned that right by practicing what I preach.

If a contract is unenforceable by law, why should someone be held to it just to "protect their good name"?

This statement has me at a loss for words.

 

[Smokey Bear]

Selective quoting - you missed the part about most people not understanding what they're signing.

 

[RaRay]

Thanks Smokey. That's everything in a nut shell. You summed it up in the mist of my aggravation - painted the picture just as it is.

 

[Smokey Bear]

RaRay - I'm convinced, after getting a law degree, that the law was designed to REQUIRE people to hire attorneys to manage what should be simple issues in their lives. They make it so complex that no one can understand what they're signing, and even I, who aced contracts, need to read a contract 3 times to make sure I didn't miss anything in the fine print. Add to it that most contracts are NOT negotiated, they are prepared by an attorney for one side, to be signed by the other side with no negotiation - take it or leave it. They absolutely flip out if you start lining out items you don't like, and say "you can't do that", when that's what negotiation is all about. And they don't want you taking it to an attorney for advice, they just want you to sign on the spot.

When there's that kind of imbalance, the courts look hard at the writer of the document, and will find against them if it's too out of balance or too broad, which is often the case. Most people just don't understand all of the legal jargon in contracts, but are expected to sign on the spot.

You can't have a contract without a meeting of the minds, and you can't have a meeting of the minds if you don't understand what you're signing or think it means something else. While the courts won't protect stupidity, it will void a contract that is too one-sided or broad.

 

[Couch Potato]

Upheld in court.

When there's that kind of imbalance, the courts look hard at the writer of the document, and will find against them if it's too out of balance or too broad, which is often the case. Most people just don't understand all of the legal jargon in contracts, but are expected to sign on the spot.

You can't have a contract without a meeting of the minds, and you can't have a meeting of the minds if you don't understand what you're signing or think it means something else. While the courts won't protect stupidity, it will void a contract that is too one-sided or broad.

I whole heartedly agree with your comments, but he did say already that the contract was upheld in court when others flaunted the restriction. Times have changed in the profession. His case might be different enough to win in court, but it is likely to be a tough sell. Obviously consulting a local attorney who can actually look at the contract is the only real way to resolve anything, but this thread should serve as a warning to others.

 

[Scott Lanz]

RaRay,

Are you saying that you didn't understand what a non-compete clause was? That your lack of intellect prohibited you from understand a basic document, or hiring someone to explain it to you?

If you plan on fighting it, and these are easily beaten in my state, I would stick with the contract being unreasonable and shy away from the "I am to stupid to be responsible for myself" defense that you and Smokey are so happy about.

How do you equate the inability to understand a non-compete clause and be able to analyze purchase agreements per USPAP?

You know, I just realized that I am wasting my time.

 

[Smokey Bear]

Scott - you have an amazing way of twisting words. That's not what's being said here, and it's not about intellect, it's about contracts being intentionally worded so that the average layperson has no clue what they're saying.

 

[Metamorphic]

Scott - you have an amazing way of twisting words. That's not what's being said here, and it's not about intellect, it's about contracts being intentionally worded so that the average layperson has no clue what they're saying.

Smokey,

Refresh my memory. What's the name of the legal principal where any ambiguity in the language of a contract is decided AGAINST the party that offered the contract?

That would seem to be at play here. There's ambiguity about what his "area" is and where their "market area" covers, its unclear what concession he won for his non-compete, all in addition to the fact that he's not being kept employed and the overall flavor of the agreement seems punitive rather than protective.

I got into a dust up with an insurance company one time. I spend about 3 days researching the law on the subject started using the terminology in my correspondence with them. That seemed to be the point at which they started rolling over.