Non-Compete Agreement
In order to be enforceable, the non-compete agreement must contain a concept of offer, acceptance, legal consideration, capacity, legality of purpose, a reasonable amount of time and date, defined geographic area, and cannot prevent the use of the employee's professional skills.
"An offer is an expression of willingness to contract on certain terms, made with the intention that it shall become binding as soon as it is accepted by the person, the offeree" (Offer and Acceptance). The expression of the offer can take many forms, such as a letter, email, fax, or even, conduct. The intention of the offer is judged in courts as how a reasonable person would view the situation. The terms of the contract must be clearly defined in the contract offer to ensure their understandability. If a reasonable person cannot understand the terms, it could be unenforceable in a court of law.
The acceptance of the offer is a final and unqualified expression of accent that must be communicated (Offer and Acceptance). It can only be accepted by the offeree, meaning it cannot be accepted by one person on the behalf of another. It may also be implied from the construction of the contract. If the offer specifies a certain method of acceptance, the offer must be accepted by that method, such as a fax or a post. Silence cannot be construed as an acceptance. The "mirror image rule" states the offer must be accepted exactly without modifications.
Legal consideration means the contract has to offer something of value in return for the promise of the other party (Contract Consideration). To be enforceable, the consideration must be adequate, meaning the mutual exchange must involve a fair price in comparison to the promise made. The principles of adequate consideration include; in addition...
Is Cooks bound to the non-compete agreement that she signed with RRG? Is this non-compete agreement a contract? Non-compete agreements are covenants made in the course of employment or contracts of sale of businesses. The signee in the contract agrees not to compete with the current employer. The key goal of these agreements is to limit the rights of employees who sign the agreement. The employees are restricted from doing any
In limited situations, an employee might attempt to obtain injunctive relief but it would be available only where the employer has somehow already prohibited the employee from otherwise working. Money damages would be available for both sides of the litigation depending upon who prevails on the underlying issues. Unfortunately, litigation costs can be expensive and result in neither party benefiting in pursuing the matter to that end. The fact that lawyers
3408 Term 1 Coursework 2012-13 Law 3408 course work Victoria's Case Employers engage workers on either contracts of service or contracts for services. Therefore, any person engaged under a contract of service qualifies as an employee and enjoys full protection as per the employment legislation. In addition, a self-employed individual must possess a contract for services with the party for whom one offers their services. It is important for people to acknowledge
It would be like selling a car for ten bucks one year and then demanding and getting a new agreement the next year for the same car even though ownership has already been transferred. The agreement in 1991, in the opinion of the author of this paper, was basically window dressing for what had already occurred the year prior. As such, it is not enforceable. Final Opinion It surely seems the
Issues Presented or Questions of Law: 1) Did the SBL agreement constitute the contract between the parties? 2) Was Plaintiffs' case barred by the parole evidence rule? 3) Should the trial court have sustained Defendants' demurrer to Plaintiffs' case? Holding / Rule of Law: 1) The SBL agreement did not constitute the contract between the parties. The contracts were formed when Plaintiffs accepted Defendants offer and tendered their consideration. Therefore, the SBL agreement and addendum
Case AnalysisCase 1: Palmateer v. International Harvester Company, 85 Ill. 2d 124, 421 N.E.2d 876 (1981)Parties: In the case of Palmateer v. International Harvester Company, the plaintiff was an employee of the defendant company.Facts: Plaintiff claims he had been wrongfully terminated from his position for helping law enforcement by being essentially a whistleblower on the company, which he was doing when he reported the crime to law enforcement.Issue: The issue
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now