3 ms·

I've never had a real employment contract. Most Americans haven't. It's typically at will employment. Every job I've had is as I've described. First day you go

I've never had a real employment contract. Most Americans haven't. It's typically at will employment. Every job I've had is as I've described. First day you go into HR to do your W2, set up insurance, 401K, etc and then you are also handed a surprise non complete. Don't want to sign it? No job. If it was part of the employment contract you'd be aware of it during the negotiations. Since you haven't even seen the paperwork until this point, how could you have proper consideration for it rolled up in the employment agreement? Why is it even a separate document if that is the case?

flanked-evergl 2y ago
In this case, it sounds like the non-compete is a clause to an implied contract then. And every single employment contract I have signed had a non-compete that was not mentioned during negotiation, and in every single case the non-competes could not be negotiated away either — that does not mean they have no consideration. > Since you haven't even seen the paperwork until this point, how could you have proper consideration for it rolled up in the employment agreement? You are using the word consideration in two different senses (i.e. equivocating in the technical sense) [1][2]. A contract must have consideration, but the consideration it requires is consideration in the sense of "A payment or other recompense for something done" not "The thought process of considering, of taking multiple or specified factors into account (with of being the main corresponding adposition)". If you want consideration in the second sense here, just refuse to sign the clause until you have sufficiently considered it. But if you do sign it, it does not mean it's without consideration in the first sense here. [1]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/consideration https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/consideration [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/consideration https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/consideration
- willcipriano 2y ago
  Implied contracts aren't worth the paper they aren't written on. That won't hold up anywhere. > refuse to sign the clause until you have sufficiently considered Sure, but you just told me to quit my job and sent me an offer letter with your terms and "forgot" that not working for X years unpaid after I leave is one of them. In fact you probably did the opposite, you called it "at will" when it clearly isn't, for me at least. Perhaps you don't sign and sue for promissory estoppel? Wouldn't it be simpler for employers to just define this sort of thing at the start instead of being sneaky about it?
  - flanked-evergl 2y ago
    > Implied contracts aren't worth the paper they aren't written on. That won't hold up anywhere. Okay, problem solved then. You don't have a non-compete clause because it won't hold up anywhere. Still has no bearing whether your contract and its clauses have consideration. > Perhaps you don't sign and sue for promissory estoppel? Sure. Good luck.
    - willcipriano 2y ago
      They aren't implied. They are physical documents presented and signed after the 'employment contract' has already began to be executed. Hell that 'employment contract' is at will 99% of the time, any party can end it at point for any reason, but that doesn't apply to the implied non-compete portion signed after employment? What? It's nonsense all the way down.
      - flanked-evergl 2y ago
        If you sign a non-compete clause in the context of employment, even at will employment, the continued employment can serve as consideration for the clause. It's not without consideration. If you sign a non-compete clause outside the context of employment, and there is no consideration for it, i.e. no continued employment or any other consideration, it's without consideration. Good luck with the novel legal theories in court, but I don't think courts are too fond of equivocation.
        willcipriano 2y ago
        I'm telling you the emperor has no clothes. Either way: Honest people would tell you the terms and conditions like that before asking about your price. Even if it's legal, its dishonest. "Whoops we accidently made as much duress as possible for you to sign our contract that we are just revealing now."

flanked-evergl 2y ago

In this case, it sounds like the non-compete is a clause to an implied contract then. And every single employment contract I have signed had a non-compete that was not mentioned during negotiation, and in every single case the non-competes could not be negotiated away either — that does not mean they have no consideration. > Since you haven't even seen the paperwork until this point, how could you have proper consideration for it rolled up in the employment agreement? You are using the word consideration in two different senses (i.e. equivocating in the technical sense) [1][2]. A contract must have consideration, but the consideration it requires is consideration in the sense of "A payment or other recompense for something done" not "The thought process of considering, of taking multiple or specified factors into account (with of being the main corresponding adposition)". If you want consideration in the second sense here, just refuse to sign the clause until you have sufficiently considered it. But if you do sign it, it does not mean it's without consideration in the first sense here. [1]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/consideration https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/consideration [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/consideration https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/consideration

willcipriano 2y ago
Implied contracts aren't worth the paper they aren't written on. That won't hold up anywhere. > refuse to sign the clause until you have sufficiently considered Sure, but you just told me to quit my job and sent me an offer letter with your terms and "forgot" that not working for X years unpaid after I leave is one of them. In fact you probably did the opposite, you called it "at will" when it clearly isn't, for me at least. Perhaps you don't sign and sue for promissory estoppel? Wouldn't it be simpler for employers to just define this sort of thing at the start instead of being sneaky about it?
- flanked-evergl 2y ago
  > Implied contracts aren't worth the paper they aren't written on. That won't hold up anywhere. Okay, problem solved then. You don't have a non-compete clause because it won't hold up anywhere. Still has no bearing whether your contract and its clauses have consideration. > Perhaps you don't sign and sue for promissory estoppel? Sure. Good luck.
  - willcipriano 2y ago
    They aren't implied. They are physical documents presented and signed after the 'employment contract' has already began to be executed. Hell that 'employment contract' is at will 99% of the time, any party can end it at point for any reason, but that doesn't apply to the implied non-compete portion signed after employment? What? It's nonsense all the way down.
    - flanked-evergl 2y ago
      If you sign a non-compete clause in the context of employment, even at will employment, the continued employment can serve as consideration for the clause. It's not without consideration. If you sign a non-compete clause outside the context of employment, and there is no consideration for it, i.e. no continued employment or any other consideration, it's without consideration. Good luck with the novel legal theories in court, but I don't think courts are too fond of equivocation.
      - willcipriano 2y ago
        I'm telling you the emperor has no clothes. Either way: Honest people would tell you the terms and conditions like that before asking about your price. Even if it's legal, its dishonest. "Whoops we accidently made as much duress as possible for you to sign our contract that we are just revealing now."