Any solicitors here?

DanielMMS said:
A qualified lawyer is unlikely to be comfortable with receiving something in Trust and offering an opinion since, due to the directness of the request, there is potentially an issue of creating a legal relationship. I understand that you are uncomfortable with posting publicly but that is your better option. I would happily make some comments in that circumstance.
Click to expand...

Ah, just the chap I was hoping would see this.

OP - either email DanielMMS or post the general nature of the clause you're concerned about (it's a very common one although its reach/enforceability is dubious) and I'm sure you'll get good, robust advice.

My stance hasn't changed but I'm not a lawyer, thankfully :cool:
 
Post it all jumbled up that way a search will never find it ever.

e.g.

I cnduo't bvleiee taht I culod aulaclty uesdtannrd waht I was rdnaieg. Unisg the icndeblire pweor of the hmuan mnid, aocdcrnig to rseecrah at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it dseno't mttaer in waht oderr the lterets in a wrod are, the olny irpoamtnt tihng is taht the frsit and lsat ltteer be in the rhgit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it whoutit a pboerlm. Tihs is bucseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey ltteer by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Aaznmig, huh? Yaeh and I awlyas tghhuot slelinpg was ipmorantt! See if yuor fdreins can raed tihs too.
 
I can see it being applicable whilst employed with them but if you were moving to a competitor I can't see how they could possibly hope to enforce it.

When your contract ends, it ends.
 
Halfmad said:
I can see it being applicable whilst employed with them but if you were moving to a competitor I can't see how they could possibly hope to enforce it.

When your contract ends, it ends.
Click to expand...

Is it not a restrictive covenants though?
 
Just off out for a few hours but will try to respond later. What was the nature of business of your previous employer - just keyrings and the like or more wide-ranging?
 
lolage said:
Is it not a restrictive covenants though?
Click to expand...

Yeah but I'd love to see legal action taken over selling key rings. Seriously the costs would be prohibitive for his existing employer and the description seems very vague for a coventant, doesn't mention geographical area, activities etc simply a blanket ban of "business conflicts".

I'm just a pleb but it seems like it's been drafted in haste to scare employees with little thought of actually trying to enforce it. Conflicting businesses could be anyone selling keyrings, so if the guy goes and works in Tesco do that conflict? even if he's not even selling items and working in the warehouse?
 
Whilst I am not a lawyer or solictor.....I can tell you that a VERY similar thing happened to me, when moving from my last company to the company I currently work for.

I recieved a letter from my previous company that I had breached the terms of the contract by effectivley working for a similar company, selling similar products into similar clients withing the timeframe they had set on my contract. (something silly like 9 months)

I sat down with our company solicitor and he just laughed at what they had sent over in the letter.

Restrictive covenants are indeed put into contracts to stop ex-employees effectively competing against them, but post-termination restriction is that it is void on the grounds that it is a restraint of trade and contrary to public policy. It follows that an employer is generally not entitled to protect himself against competition from his ex-employees.

They are also not allowed to deny somebody the right to a living legally....people need to work to live and you cannot legally stop someone from doing so.

So unless you have stolen information from your previous employer, then you have NOTHING to worry about.

Our company lawyer put together a legal letter to that effect back to my old employer and we didnt hear anything back.
 
Halfmad said:
Yeah but I'd love to see legal action taken over selling key rings. Seriously the costs would be prohibitive for his existing employer and the description seems very vague for a coventant, doesn't mention geographical area, activities etc simply a blanket ban of "business conflicts".

I'm just a pleb but it seems like it's been drafted in haste to scare employees with little thought of actually trying to enforce it. Conflicting businesses could be anyone selling keyrings, so if the guy goes and works in Tesco do that conflict? even if he's not even selling items and working in the warehouse?
Click to expand...

Thank you, I hope so.

spookywillow said:
I'm pretty sure your fine and it will be void as they are saying you can't even work on the bar at venues they don't operate in.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause
Click to expand...

Sorry I may have mis typed making you misunderstand. They don't want me working on the bar in the venue that they used to work in (I used to work in the venue too with [COMPANY] and they don't want me selling keyrings in venues they haven't even worked with before.
 
francky said:
Whilst I am not a lawyer or solictor.....I can tell you that a VERY similar thing happened to me, when moving from my last company to the company I currently work for.

I recieved a letter from my previous company that I had breached the terms of the contract by effectivley working for a similar company, selling similar products into similar clients withing the timeframe they had set on my contract. (something silly like 9 months)

I sat down with our company solicitor and he just laughed at what they had sent over in the letter.

Restrictive covenants are indeed put into contracts to stop ex-employees effectively competing against them, but post-termination restriction is that it is void on the grounds that it is a restraint of trade and contrary to public policy. It follows that an employer is generally not entitled to protect himself against competition from his ex-employees.

They are also not allowed to deny somebody the right to a living legally....people need to work to live and you cannot legally stop someone from doing so.

So unless you have stolen information from your previous employer, then you have NOTHING to worry about.

Our company lawyer put together a legal letter to that effect back to my old employer and we didnt hear anything back.
Click to expand...

Thank you! :)
 
restrictive covenants - which is basically what this is - are very difficult to enforce, and most of the time, not worth the hassle to enforce.

I mean - are your previous company, going to take all the time, hassle, cost and potential embarrassment of losing a case thru the courts - just to stop someone selling stuff in nightclubs/bars etc??

No chance - just get on with your job and ignore it would be my advice.
 
booyaka said:
restrictive covenants - which is basically what this is - are very difficult to enforce, and most of the time, not worth the hassle to enforce.

I mean - are your previous company, going to take all the time, hassle, cost and potential embarrassment of losing a case thru the courts - just to stop someone selling stuff in nightclubs/bars etc??

No chance - just get on with your job and ignore it would be my advice.
Click to expand...

Thanks! :)
 
I don't see how any contract that basically says "you must remain unemployed in this field for so many months" can be enforced at all, especially if it was the only field you worked in. The only situation where I imagine it may hold any water would be if you left to work for a client of that company.

Anything preventing you from earning a wage and paying your bills would surely get laughed out of court.
 
No I never misunderstood but edited my original post and forgot to add a bit the second time round, but for a quick version francky is correct as I was in the same boat last year after a company I worked for robbed me of the frachise they sold me ;)
 
Halfmad said:
I can see it being applicable whilst employed with them but if you were moving to a competitor I can't see how they could possibly hope to enforce it.

When your contract ends, it ends.
Click to expand...

DanielMMS can comment properly (hopefully) but your comments about the subject aren't strictly true as contracts can contain anti-competition rules. Whether the old employer goes through the effort of the courts to enforce it is another matter..
 
Magnolia was actually right.

As booyaka said this is a restrictive covenant which is difficult to enforce. The type of business is not specifically stated so the covenant is void. The geographical area is not stated either and in this kind of situation it should be, so it's also void on that basis.

If they had said "you may not take photographs and produce keyrings and other merchandise for nightclubs, bars and entertainment events within the Birmingham City Centre for 360 days following the termination of this contract" then fine but they drafted a ****** clause that even Magnolia can see is unenforceable.

Ignore them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom