Noncompete, nonsolicit, nondisclose agreement company that was sold. But wait, there&#39;s more This all happens in Minnesota. Employee E worked for company A and had standard noncompete agreement. Agreement has an assignment clause assigning rights to any successor. Company B buys most business units of company A and hires most employees. Seller of A starts new company N. E stays with seller of A and works for new company N. Assume it's clear that language of noncompete contract assigned to B all rights of all of A's employees who now work for B. A was in the business of providing medical billing services to hospitals. E worked in that industry when hired by A. During employment E developed a product to detect fraud within hospitals and stopped working on billing and started working on the product. When B buys A, it only buys the billing business. Seller of A starts new business explicitly to sell fraud product and invites E to come along. There is an implied option for E to stay on and work for B, but B does not express interest in E and has no contact with E before the sale. Seller has an explicit new agreement with B (it is specific to seller the person) that seller will not engage in medical billing business. E has no new agreement. Seller commences new business N. E has no new agreement or paperwork with N. Not even a tax form. N is a small company and does not provide health insurance but since E received benefits under his spouse's employer there was no change in status in that regard. The only change is that auto deposit pay checks were now from N. Hospital who previously worked with seller at company A contacts seller, asking for consulting work on a billing problem. Because of seller's agreement with B, the consulting contract is written between hospital and B, with N working under a separate agreement with B. Basically N does all the work while B prints invoices and sends 50% of money to N. Seller goes to hospital and brings E along for the consulting job. In the course of the work, hospital offers E a job. Not just a job, the job - the one that's being filled by the contract work. Counsel for hospital sees no problem with the offer as it relates to hospital's actions and let's assume that's a correct assessment. But what about E? Is there any legal doctrine whereby E's agreement with A continued to apply to E in his work for company N? What about B? Do they have any standing to block E's going to work for a B's customer? My thinking here is that E technically has a noncompete agreement with B but perhaps there is a generally accepted public policy theory whereby employers can't enforce agreements against former employees especially under these facts. Reasonable minds may suggest that neither B nor N have an interest in blocking the employment. But let's assume seller is pissed bc now E won't be available to develop product for N and B is pissed because the hiring stops the gravy train and cuts off future potential work.
Is there any legal doctrine whereby E's agreement with A continued to apply to E in his work for company N? No, because the parties to the non-compete agreement were Employee E and company A, not the human who owned and sold A. What about B? Do they have any standing to block E's going to work for a B's customer? No. My rationale is that the decisions you describe result in a waiver of the non-compete clause. An employment relation between B and E never existed. Thus, the only vestige of B's non-compete rights binding E that could have been preserved stem from E's former employment at A. However, that vestige disappeared at the instant B --apropos of the hospital project-- waived its non-compete clause with N. Given B's waiver with regard to N, N's failure to establish a non-compete clause with E enables the latter to conduct business with (or accept employment at) the hospital. If anything, B would have standing to sue N for negligence or related torts. But neither B nor N has any viable non-compete claims against E.
You had bought product A. That constitutes you offering the seller a contract for you to get product A for your money. They keep the money and send product B - and now are in breach of the contract, as that is materially different from the contract both agreed to. Legal recourse is, depending on the customer protection laws, a refund of the payments or getting the correct product A. If you have a right for the Product A depends on exactly how it was advertized and the exact ToS.
Yes. The formation of a contract requires (among other things) that the parties intend to be legally bound. Their sending the offer from a corporate email address shows this. You replying in the same way shows your intention. Signatures are optional. Consider, verbal contracts are binding; how do you sign those?
It is certainly possible to transfer a copyright or other IP without an explicit charge, indeed it can be a pure gift, and normally would be when it is left by will, as is common enough. From a paid consultant it might be clearer to include a statement that the transfer is part of the consulting assignment, rather than putting a price of zero in a blank. But one could instead convey a permanent non-exclusive license, granting permission to use or modify the work in any way desired, ans saying that this is provided as part of the consulting process. Then there would be no question of what rights the consultant retained, or that the same or a very similar solution could be provided to different clients. Indeed such a license would not be so very different from a CC-BY license, or any of several open source licenses, although I would not use one of those by name. But the legal effect would be much the same, and the wording could be similar. Otherwise there could be a later claim that the right transferred precluded the consultant from using the same solution for other clients. Even if such a claim was not legally sound, and was not upheld, it could be a distraction and costly of time and energy at least.
Only if the company consents While some jurisdictions have by statute allowed corporations to be bound by pre-incorporation contracts, New York is not one of them and holds to the common law principle that a person cannot enter a contract before that person exists. In your circumstances the company is only bound by the second contract. So, who is bound by the first? Well, corporations can only act through agents and agency law tells us that an agent who purportedly acts for a non-existent principal is actually acting on their own behalf. So, the person(s) who signed for Company X on the first contract are personally bound to the contract. Unless they explicitly told Company Y that they wouldn’t be. It seems that they didn’t so Company Y can require performance of the first contract by them and of the second by Company X. Company Y must, of course, fulfil its obligations under both contracts - it needs to bear this in mind if it is actually impossible to do both, for example, transferring the same property to the signers of the first contract and Company X or becoming a full time employee of both. If so, it might be in Company Y’s best interests to let the first contract “die”.
Possibly If the texts are sufficiently precise that they constitute offer and acceptance then they would create a contract notwithstanding that “some documents” were never provided. First, your offer must have been sufficiently clear that it was open to acceptance by a simple “yes” or “ok”. Given that you had a lease, a simple offer to have another one would be enough as “on the same terms” is implied. Second, she must have accepted your offer unconditionally. “Yes, I’ll put together some documents to sign” is an unconditional acceptance even if the documents never appear. “Yes, I’ll put together some documents to sign first” or “Yes, I’ll put together some documents with the terms” aren’t. The first is a conditional acceptance and the condition wasn’t met. The second is a rejection with an intention to make a counter-offer that never eventuated. Third, real estate is heavily regulated. There may be specific requirements (such as a particular form of contract, or that it be witnessed) that mean there is no binding lease even though there would be a contract at common law.
This is neither unusual nor illegal, assuming that the buyback price is specified in the agreement. If your friend does not wish to take advantage of the "nice discount" he can decline the deal, and decide for himself whether he wishes to buy shares without restriction, at the market rate. (It would be interesting to know what happens if he sells his shares and then leaves the company. I am fairly sure the agreement will cover this, but requiring an ex-employee to buy shares and then give them to the company could be considered unconscionable. That might be worth asking a lawyer about).
Washington State is an "At Will" employment state meaning that, with exception to some protected classes and bargaining, the employer may terminate the employee for any reason the employer can cite, or no reason at all. If the firm used it as a benefit of the job but it wasn't agreed upon on the contract, its not a deception as if you can hold the job to the down season, you have less work to do. If a promise was made for employment into the down season during the negotiating of the job, and this was documented, it could be. It could be that he did all the work required of him, but another higher went above and beyond and he got the ax because he was the newest and the lesser performer. Either way, the employer is well within their right to fire an employee for any reason they choose absent discrimination based on protected class status.