3 ms·

>Wrong question. The proper question is, "Why is that allowed?" Because people should be able to put whatever ridiculous terms they want into a contract. It's

>Wrong question. The proper question is, "Why is that allowed?" Because people should be able to put whatever ridiculous terms they want into a contract. It's up to you to agree in the first place, and in the second, a court to determine if the term is enforceable. There are a few valid reasons for a non-compete, after all.

st3v3r 10y ago
"Because people should be able to put whatever ridiculous terms they want into a contract" No, they shouldn't. "There are a few valid reasons for a non-compete, after all." No, there aren't.
- forgetsusername 10y ago
  >No, they shouldn't. No, you're right. Someone like, say, you, should get to decide, preemptively, what a contract between two parties should or should not be allowed to include. Because you know better than the parties actually doing the negotiation, right? Why should we trust that the relevant parties know what's in their own interests? >No, there aren't. Yes, there are.
  - st3v3r 10y ago
    "No, you're right. Someone like, say, you, should get to decide, preemptively, what a contract between two parties should or should not be allowed to include. Because you know better than the parties actually doing the negotiation, right? Why should we trust that the relevant parties know what's in their own interests?" When one party has far more power than the other, and the clause in question is only there to screw the worker over and prevent them from working in their chosen field? Yes. There is absolutely no reason why a worker would want one of these clauses. They get railroaded into them only because they need a job and don't have negotiating power. Stop pretending that everyone has the same negotiating power. "Yes, there are." No, there aren't. A company is not entitled to make money. Especially not at the expense of someone being able to feed their family.

st3v3r 10y ago

"Because people should be able to put whatever ridiculous terms they want into a contract" No, they shouldn't. "There are a few valid reasons for a non-compete, after all." No, there aren't.

forgetsusername 10y ago
>No, they shouldn't. No, you're right. Someone like, say, you, should get to decide, preemptively, what a contract between two parties should or should not be allowed to include. Because you know better than the parties actually doing the negotiation, right? Why should we trust that the relevant parties know what's in their own interests? >No, there aren't. Yes, there are.
- st3v3r 10y ago
  "No, you're right. Someone like, say, you, should get to decide, preemptively, what a contract between two parties should or should not be allowed to include. Because you know better than the parties actually doing the negotiation, right? Why should we trust that the relevant parties know what's in their own interests?" When one party has far more power than the other, and the clause in question is only there to screw the worker over and prevent them from working in their chosen field? Yes. There is absolutely no reason why a worker would want one of these clauses. They get railroaded into them only because they need a job and don't have negotiating power. Stop pretending that everyone has the same negotiating power. "Yes, there are." No, there aren't. A company is not entitled to make money. Especially not at the expense of someone being able to feed their family.