Re: FN-FORUM: Advertising Bastards

date posted 11th January 2006 13:24

On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 01:46:20PM -0000, [EMAIL REMOVED] wrote:
>
> Colin Rainsforth wrote:
>
>
> >That clause has got to be b*llshit.
> >
> >The only way I can see this applying is if you were working on projects
> >which required you to maintain secrets, such as new product development
> >with IP rights sensitivities. In which case it would certainly be
> >reasonable and legal to bind you to a non-disclosure agreement - but
> >that's all.
> >
> >ColinR
> This is a clause from a proposed contract of employment from an internet
> company. I turned this down.
>
> "you agree you will not work or consult for a direct competitor during
> the term of your employment and for a period of twelve (12) months after
> your employment ends. You agree you will not engage in, hold interests
> in or perform services for a Competitive Business in Europe and North
> America. For the purposes of the Agreement the term "competitive
> business" shall mean an organisation that offers parallel or similar
> services to the market place such as Web Hosting, Domain Registration
> and Managed Servers."
>
> I'd reckon the above is possibly unfair and would not be enforceable.

The test has got to be: would you be unable to work (using your skills, ...)
as a result of the clause.

When faced with this sort of thing I will often sign the contract ''subject to
attached letter'' and attach a letter saying that I will not be bound
by clauses A, B, C and that I interpret clause D to mean ''.....''.
What usually happens is that the beurocrat is happy that the contract has
been signed but doesn't know what to do with the letter and
so ignores it. Thus: you get what you want.

--
Alain Williams
Parliament Hill Computers Ltd.
Linux Consultant - Mail systems, Web sites, Networking, Programmer, IT Lecturer.
+44 (0) 787 668 0256 http://www.phcomp.co.uk/

#include