Restrained of trade 2

[Rheinhardt]

Hi gents,

I need some insight into a contract i have with my previous company in which i was a shareholder.

Some background i started the company a few years ago and took on other shareholders. In this time our relationships broke down within the company and i resigned as a shareholder forfitting my shares in the company. Under our Shareholders agreement we have a restraint of trade. I would like to know my rights in terms of future work. I am from SOuth Africa and did work for a client which is also a friend of mine in Australia. Since the relationships have broken down i have had a request from a Company in Australia to do work for them and then my previous client.

Also if i understand these restraints i may not work in the town where i worked for this company.





--Off all the things i've lost , i miss my mind the most--

 

[moon161]

Years ago, I interviewed for a job, and prior to the interview they had me sign an intellectual property release, everything I had invented or will invent was theirs, or some such thing. They rushed me when I paused to actually read it, more when I questioned it. Still can't believe I signed it, wouldn't do it again. There was some understanding that it was a stupid formality, but it added to the strikes against them (stupid IQ/social engineering test I had to fill out in advance) that I took into the interview. No job offer, wouldn't have taken it.

 

[jmw]

Moon, what country?
In the UK such clauses are strictly limited by law.
The best they can do during your employment is require you to disclose any inventions - unless you were employed in an R&D role.
Even if you do sign such a clause it is invalid because they are "inalienable rights".
When our company was taken over by an American company and they asked us all to sign their standard contract, they had to then rescind it and rewrite this bit to b consistent with the law.

I did a fair bit of "disclosing" in my time but in my favour was the "Not invented here" attitude i.e. not invented in R&D where they wouldn't have to remunerate an employee for a good idea.
Actually, this seems par for the course for a lot of companies whether you are employed by them or not.

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[MacGyverS2000]

j,

I don't believe it's enforceable in the US, either...

Dan - Owner

http://www.Hi-TecDesigns.com

 

[jmw]

Well, in the UK inalienable means you cannot sign away your rights no matter how much the employers try and coerce you.
I suspect that in the US the prevalence of such clauses reflects the fact that you can and do sign away your rights.

I could be wrong, there are plenty of examples of false clauses which probably are invalid but unless someone gets legal advise that they need not comply, they do comply.
Those car park signs: "Cars parked at owners risk. Management accept no responsibility...." but in fact the management does have a duty of care which they cannot abnegate and in some cases they do have liability. So why word it this way? because many people don't bother to claim or challenge simply because of the signs.
It's why so many insurers have a first response to claims that the cause is fair wear and tear or due to causes outside the cover. Or they make a valuation way below a fair value. Never accept the first response.
Don't trust that because a lawyer put it in the contract that it is legally binding.
In fact, never trust a lawyer.

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[moon161]

US. I doubt they're watching the papers for my name in a patent filing. The absurdity of the situation tooke me back. Seemed like a step away from the movie 'Brazil'.

 

[IRstuff]

In the US, there are laws that prevent ex-government workers from lobbying their previous organization for up to two years.

TTFN

FAQ731-376
Chinese prisoner wins Nobel Peace Prize

 

[moon161]

"In the US, there are laws that prevent ex-government workers from lobbying their previous organization for up to two years."

A quaint theory, indeed.