Sam Leccia's Debut on hold

[cmitch]

Non-competes are almost ALWAYS unenforceable. I work in the graphic arts industry where non-competes are a heavy industry standard and the contracts are usually nullified by a judge due to the many loopholes available. One example would be firing. Regardless if the termination was justified, the company attempting to enforce the non-compete had better be able to prove it was a good firing or the courts will throw it out in the streets. The REASON is: What would stop an employer from 'hiring' you, making you sign an agreement for 3 to 5 years, work you 90 days and fire you? This would prevent you from finding gainful employment in your profession while 'protecting' the former employer from your work being done for his competitor. It's these abuses that make non-competes stupid to sign and difficult to enforce.

[TheRiddick]

Originally Posted by cmitch

Non-competes are almost ALWAYS unenforceable. I work in the graphic arts industry where non-competes are a heavy industry standard and the contracts are usually nullified by a judge due to the many loopholes available. One example would be firing. Regardless if the termination was justified, the company attempting to enforce the non-compete had better be able to prove it was a good firing or the courts will throw it out in the streets. The REASON is: What would stop an employer from 'hiring' you, making you sign an agreement for 3 to 5 years, work you 90 days and fire you? This would prevent you from finding gainful employment in your profession while 'protecting' the former employer from your work being done for his competitor. It's these abuses that make non-competes stupid to sign and difficult to enforce.

Doesn't work like that in real world, bad example. Can you cite one such case?

Look up wine industry non-competes. So far, ALL OF THEM WERE and ARE ENFORCEABLE. In addition, I have yet to meet one winemaker who went back on his word, maybe its an industry thing, but agreements are ALL respected.

Like I said above, and AFAIK, any time a 5 YEAR non-compete is signed (a pretty lengthy time, I admit) there is serious monetary compensation involved one way or another (meaning during/prior to termination or thereafter), make no mistake about it. So, claiming "hardship" is pretty dubious.

Besides, you and some others keep mentioning "firing" as a way of Leccia/Oliva parting ways. Do you know this to be factual or simply guessing? If Leccia left on his own accord, then there is no court around to take his side. And from where I sit it does look like Leccia quit on his own accord and then decided to go the "American way", ie, stupid legal system where judges and juries have no common sense half the time and plaintiffs have nothing to loose by filing frivolous claims.

You don't see Ernesto Carrillo suing General after they paid him years ago to buy him out and he had to sit all this time on the sidelines due to non-compete he signed up front. That is a man of his word. And honor. To me. But it seems my values are skewed judging by some posts in the thread.

[cmitch]

Originally Posted by TheRiddick

Doesn't work like that in real world, bad example. Can you cite one such case?

Look up wine industry non-competes. So far, ALL OF THEM WERE and ARE ENFORCEABLE. In addition, I have yet to meet one winemaker who went back on his word, maybe its an industry thing, but agreements are ALL respected.

Are you speaking of 'Employment non-competes or BUYOUT non-competes?

Originally Posted by TheRiddick

Like I said above, and AFAIK, any time a 5 YEAR non-compete is signed (a pretty lengthy time, I admit) there is serious monetary compensation involved one way or another (meaning during/prior to termination or thereafter), make no mistake about it. So, claiming "hardship" is pretty dubious.

No such compensations have I seen in my field, nor in any field of a 'creative' nature. Is cigar blending creative? I guess it's a matter of opinion

Originally Posted by TheRiddick

Besides, you and some others keep mentioning "firing" as a way of Leccia/Oliva parting ways. Do you know this to be factual or simply guessing? If Leccia left on his own accord, then there is no court around to take his side. And from where I sit it does look like Leccia quit on his own accord and then decided to go the "American way", ie, stupid legal system where judges and juries have no common sense half the time and plaintiffs have nothing to loose by filing frivolous claims.

Where? I used that as an example, only.

Originally Posted by TheRiddick

You don't see Ernesto Carrillo suing General after they paid him years ago to buy him out and he had to sit all this time on the sidelines due to non-compete he signed up front. That is a man of his word. And honor. To me. But it seems my values are skewed judging by some posts in the thread.

Again, was this a pre-employment non-compete or a corporate buy-out non-compete? Buyout non competes are always enforceable, because it's an agreement between a previous owner/CEO and the new buyer to not go into the field of business that the company they sold conducted. A pre-employment non-compete is getting an employee to agree not to enter in a field in which they would compete with their former employer if they were to part ways. The reason why these are seldom enforceable is because there are too many ways an employee can part ways with his employer.

I am not saying that it's okay and moral for a former employee to violate a non-compete agreement. I'm just saying those kinds are rarely enforceable, especially if the former employee can prove there was no ground for his termination or had significant pressure to leave prematurely. Let's not blur the line on what is being discussed. I have no horse in this race, either way, Just adding an observation that's worth about

[forgop]

Originally Posted by cmitch

Are you speaking of 'Employment non-competes or BUYOUT non-competes?


No such compensations have I seen in my field, nor in any field of a 'creative' nature. Is cigar blending creative? I guess it's a matter of opinion


Where? I used that as an example, only.


Again, was this a pre-employment non-compete or a corporate buy-out non-compete? Buyout non competes are always enforceable, because it's an agreement between a previous owner/CEO and the new buyer to not go into the field of business that the company they sold conducted. A pre-employment non-compete is getting an employee to agree not to enter in a field in which they would compete with their former employer if they were to part ways. The reason why these are seldom enforceable is because there are too many ways an employee can part ways with his employer.

I am not saying that it's okay and moral for a former employee to violate a non-compete agreement. I'm just saying those kinds are rarely enforceable, especially if the former employee can prove there was no ground for his termination or had significant pressure to leave prematurely. Let's not blur the line on what is being discussed. I have no horse in this race, either way, Just adding an observation that's worth about

I'm having a hard time believing anyone would put together a 5 year pre-employment non-compete agreement. This smells of severance/buy-out non-compete to me.

[replicant_argent]

Originally Posted by forgop

I'm having a hard time believing anyone would put together a 5 year pre-employment non-compete agreement. This smells of severance/buy-out non-compete to me.

It actually smells more like an iron-clad NUNYA contract disposition to me.

[OLS]

Originally Posted by replicant_argent

It actually smells more like an iron-clad NUNYA contract disposition to me.

Ehhhh-heheh