[kwlug-disc] non-compete agreement.

Chris Irwin chris at chrisirwin.ca
Thu Dec 31 11:31:52 EST 2009


On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 10:53, Robert P. J. Day <rpjday at crashcourse.ca>wrote:

> makes perfect sense.  let me throw in one extra piece of advice.
> don't listen to people who demand that you run such a thing past a
> lawyer.  if it's written in such a way that only a lawyer would
> understand its ramifications, you don't want to sign it.  *you* should
> be able to understand the consequences.
>

This is important. My non-compete is fairly plain english. Somewhat verbose
considering what it had to say (maybe a paragraph or two to outline roughly
what I said in one sentence), but it was perfectly readable by myself.
Having it in legalese, where neither the employer (henceforth referred to as
"the first party") or the employee (henceforth referred to as "party A") can
not understand or define without aid of their own lawyers (henceforth
referred to as "party down") or a legal textbook is unnecessarily complex
and only serves to get further business for party down. I don't see a
downside of saying it in english, as both party A and the first party can
easily understand each other without a court case between them.

I can't comment on running it past a lawyer or not as they might point out
some things that may cause trouble. But keep the definition as short and
simple as possible.

-- 
Chris Irwin
<chris at chrisirwin.ca>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://astoria.ccjclearline.com/pipermail/kwlug-disc_kwlug.org/attachments/20091231/81601077/attachment.html>


More information about the kwlug-disc_kwlug.org mailing list