Any solicitors here?

[Schlong&Stable]

Putting aside the legality of the clause which I know zip about, I'm not sure why people think it would be expensive for the other company to pursue this. Small claims courts cost zip, which is where something like this would end up.

Based on what others have said, it doesn't sound like this is enforceable. But if it was, it wouldn't cost much to pursue.

 

[ci_newman]

Any solicitors here will likely charge you £200 for reading it.

I've read it, OP please send £200 via Paypal gift to [email protected]

 

[Robosapien]

Come and see me at my office.

 

[lolage]

One thing I want to make clear does it matter that this ISNT an employment contract... Its more of a contracters contract

 

[arknor]

just tell them to DO ONE!

it's not like you worked at nasa on high tech programs and then you are going to work at a civilian space company where the knowledge from nasa could give them a massive tech boost or something....

 

[DanielMMS]

Not a great deal to add to what has been said already but I will include my tuppence worth (we barristers clearly charge far less than those useless £200 per hour solicitors) anyway.

Technically, any covenant that acts as a restraint on trade is void. That is to say that it would be unlawful to attempt to remove the right of a former employee to gain a living from their chosen profession. However, there is a "but" - a big but - and this relates to whether the covenant is in place purely to protect a legitimate business interest and whether it is reasonable for the purposes of such protection. If that can be shown - and it is the responsibility of the employer to present an appropriate level of evidence - a court is likely to enforce the clause.

The important word in your context is reasonable. If the clause is not considered reasonable then it would be void. In order to be reasonable the clause must set out geographical-, duration- and activity-based restrictions - and these must be justifiable in terms of protecting the employer’s business.

The clause you have really is shockingly worded. For a start, what exactly is the difference between “working with” and “working in conjunction with”!? However, it does specify the duration element (although 360 days is frankly ludicrous in relation to the nature of the business) but nothing else. Leaving the geographical and activity elements completely open-ended would not be considered reasonable and would, therefore, render the clause void. So you have nothing about which to concern yourself.

TLDR version – shock horror Mags is spot on (almost)!

[edit] oh, and the fact that you are a contractor would not change the position either way.

 

[lolage]

Not a great deal to add to what has been said already but I will include my tuppence worth (we barristers clearly charge far less than those useless £200 per hour solicitors) anyway.

Technically, any covenant that acts as a restraint on trade is void. That is to say that it would be unlawful to attempt to remove the right of a former employee to gain a living from their chosen profession. However, there is a "but" - a big but - and this relates to whether the covenant is in place purely to protect a legitimate business interest and whether it is reasonable for the purposes of such protection. If that can be shown - and it is the responsibility of the employer to present an appropriate level of evidence - a court is likely to enforce the clause.

The important word in your context is reasonable. If the clause is not considered reasonable then it would be void. In order to be reasonable the clause must set out geographical-, duration- and activity-based restrictions - and these must be justifiable in terms of protecting the employer’s business.

The clause you have really is shockingly worded. For a start, what exactly is the difference between “working with” and “working in conjunction with”!? However, it does specify the duration element (although 360 days is frankly ludicrous in relation to the nature of the business) but nothing else. Leaving the geographical and activity elements completely open-ended would not be considered reasonable and would, therefore, render the clause void. So you have nothing about which to concern yourself.

TLDR version – shock horror Mags is spot on (almost)!

[edit] oh, and the fact that you are a contractor would not change the position either way.

Great thanks a lot!

 

[Steeps]

The way it is worded is really poor, I have a 3 year old copy of their contract and reading it now I can't believe I signed something that bad.

I left owing them 2 weeks of commission, I had to train someone to cover for me when I was having 2 weekends off which affected my sales (they didn't even know how to turn the camera on), I was told that was part of the job so I didn't pay them for the training period. Got threats over facebook about taking legal action and suing me but nothing ever happened.

They haven't even launched their social networking site they've been building for 4 years, if it's not quick and easy money I don't believe they'll try.

 

[lolage]

The way it is worded is really poor, I have a 3 year old copy of their contract and reading it now I can't believe I signed something that bad.

I left owing them 2 weeks of commission, I had to train someone to cover for me when I was having 2 weekends off which affected my sales (they didn't even know how to turn the camera on), I was told that was part of the job so I didn't pay them for the training period. Got threats over facebook about taking legal action and suing me but nothing ever happened.

They haven't even launched their social networking site they've been building for 4 years, if it's not quick and easy money I don't believe they'll try.

Going to email you.

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

Seconded, i want to see mag's opinion.

Surely that goes for all your opinions?

Magnolia was actually right.

they drafted a ****** clause that even Magnolia can see is unenforceable.

shock horror Mags is spot on (almost)!

I knew all those hours watching The People's Court would pay off

 

[PistolPete]

IANAL (the wife is though)

They are quite right to say that you shouldn't be taking photos for any kind of commercial photography as this would be a breach of the contract....enforcing it would be a different kettle of fish.

However working behind the bar (or anywhere else within the venue assuming no photography or selling of keyrings) is none of their business! Unless they can prove that the venue's business conflicts with their own.... tell them to do one.

 

[lolage]

IANAL (the wife is though)

They are quite right to say that you shouldn't be taking photos for any kind of commercial photography as this would be a breach of the contract....enforcing it would be a different kettle of fish.

However working behind the bar (or anywhere else within the venue assuming no photography or selling of keyrings) is none of their business! Unless they can prove that the venue's business conflicts with their own.... tell them to do one.

Surely should be fine doing photos and keyrings though too? The contract as said before here is very vague?

 

[wnb]

I have had to try and enforce a restrictive covenant and it cost me £624+vat and their are no guarantees it has worked. Basically the covenant restricts my employees from poaching staff and stealing clients either to take with them to another company or to start a new venture.

I have no problems with people working for competitors or starting up in competition but once they try to poach staff and customers that's when I get the big guns out. One thing about restrictive covenants is that they have to be fair and can not be wide ranging and must not stop someone fro making a living.