4 ms·

>it wasn't an issue of enforceability

• cycomanic 5y ago
  You literally said a "non-binding, unenforceable" so yes this post was about enforceability. You made a false statement with possible serious repercussions for a person following your advise. Now you backtrack that it wasn't about enforceability?
  • rosndo 5y ago
    What? I replied to a comment saying: >it wasn't an issue of enforceability I’m not backtracking on anything. Are you ok? If it wasn’t an issue of enforceability, I think we can reasonably assume that the noncompete was not enforceable. Unenforceability was the premise of this conversation, and that wasn’t introduced by me.
    • cycomanic 5y ago
      I think you should go back and read over the thread and how your replies can be understood. You replied to someone saying that lying by omission is terrible advice, by saying omitting signing a non-binding unenforceable nocompete is not lying. Yes two levels up someone said the main issue is not enforceability but the uncertainty that it gives potential future employers. So I unterstand you made the leap that the nocompete is unenforceable and therefore no binding. That's a pretty big leap and also ignores the point. Enforceability is typically a grey area and decided by the courts, and therefore there is a risk associated with violating the nocompete (for employee and new employer), and many employers might want to avoid it. If you were referring to the case where the nocompete is clearly illegal (e.g. you're in california), yes there is no uncertainty, but then there is also no issue about disclosing it, because there is no associated risk. In that case I don't understand what you were trying to add to the discussion?