3 ms·

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 considere

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

> 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."