3 ms·
The issue is whether people exercise their rights "under the protection" of more powerful (but private) entities. For example, in some of the cases cited in the
by solidsnack9000 9y ago
The issue is whether people exercise their rights "under the protection" of more powerful (but private) entities. For example, in some of the cases cited in the New York Times, courts acknowledged that non-competes were not to be enforced -- but only after the hiring company went to bat for their new staffer.
If someone enters into an unenforceable agreement, they should be freed of it speedily and inexpensively. Maybe the terms of the agreement are such that its' unenforceability is non-obvious; but it is ultimately the one bringing suit who should bear the cost of wasting everyone's time in that case.
- rhapsodic 9y ago>If someone enters into an unenforceable agreement, they should be freed of it speedily and inexpensively. Maybe the terms of the agreement are such that its' unenforceability is non-obvious; but it is ultimately the one bringing suit who should bear the cost of wasting everyone's time in that case. Unfortunately, the Democratic party in the US has fought tooth-and-nail against "loser pays" tort reform for decades.
- solidsnack9000 9y agoI hope I answered your original question, with regards to the parallel to feudalism. In a different legal climate it might not play out that way; but in the current one it does.