Am I allowed to ask a company to sign a contract? I am an undergraduate student. I recently got an internship in a company in Mauritius. I started the internship 3 weeks ago but I have a concern. The company has not created any internship contract/agreement yet. During the interview process, we just verbally informed me that they are going to pay me according to the local standards. When I asked about the contract, they told me that we will do it later. It's been 3 weeks now and the company hasn't shown any proactivity regarding creating a contract. My plan is now creating the contract myself, leaving a blank space where the company can input the amount they are going to pay me. Then, I will come to my manager and tell him to read it, escalate it to the concerned parties in HR, fill the blank and sign if the company agrees. Is it my right to create such contract?
In general, "a signed piece of paper" is not "a contract". It may be a record of a contract, but the contract itself is the meeting of minds where an agreement is reached and doesn't depend on the existence of the piece of paper. (Depending on the jurisdiction, some sorts of contract are required to be in writing, but this doesn't usually apply to employment contracts; it's usually contracts involving land.) What is far more worrying to me is that you don't know how much they are going to pay you. That suggests there hasn't been a meeting of minds, and there is no contract. (It might be that "the going rate" is good enough to form a contract - to determine that would require advice from a local lawyer.) I suggest you don't write up a formal agreement, but nag your boss to decide how much they are actually going to pay you.
Contracts do not have to be written and signed on pieces of paper, except in a few cases specified by law. Writing style (ordinary style of talking vs. high-register formulaic language) does not affect the validity or a writing in contract law. You do have something in writing. What matters most is what he actually said (exact words, not your belief of what it must have meant), and how it relates to any existing contractual obligation. For example if the message says &quot;You're fired, turn your badge in at the desk. I'll think about giving you two weeks pay&quot;, that's not an enforceable promise. But your existing contract might say &quot;You get 2 weeks severance pay when we fire you&quot;, and that can't be walked by by saying &quot;I'll thinking about it&quot;. And it also depends on whether there are any laws mandating severance pay (but California does not have any mandatory severance pay law).
You say the permission was "public", therefore I am going to assume that it cannot be argued that there was no agreement. There are two possibilities: If Company B has given consideration for the promise then there is a binding contract and Company A may be able to end it but could not seek redress for when it was in place. If there is no contract then the principle of promissory estoppel should have essentially the same effect. An agreement, including an IP licence, does not have to be in writing nor does it have to have any particular form.
Can non-competes be enforced after expiration? Strictly speaking, it can no longer be enforced. Instead, company X may still obtain remedies for your breach of contract (I am definitely not "condemning" you, as I totally understand your position; I'm just explaining the vulnerability to which you are exposed). What you call expiration is more of a "freezing period" during which you were prohibited to work for company Y. But what matters is the concept of statute of limitations, which is the period during which company X may sue you for breach of the non-compete clause (and hence, breach of contract). The statute of limitations for breach of contract varies by jurisdiction. In jurisdictions of the U.S., typically it is three or six years. It was risky for you to rely on company Z's "assurance", especially if Z did not memorialize --in writing-- that it would defend you in the event that company X sues you for breach of contract (after all, Z alleged being "confident they could defeat the non-compete if necessary"). Furthermore, company Z's allegation that your promotion nullifies or supersedes the "old" non-compete seems devoid of merit, at least at first glance. One would need to know the terms of your contract with company X to ascertain whether company Z's assessment is accurate.
Because a contract is simply an agreement between two parties to exchange anything of value, there are many, many more types of contracts. If the company hires you, you would have an employment contract. If you agree to pick up a shift this week for someone who will pick up a shift for you next week, you have a contract. If the company lays you off, you may end up with a severance agreement. If you sue them for race discrimination you may enter into a contract to settle the case for a million dollars. If you want to protect that money from your fiance, you might enter into a prenuptial agreement. If you get divorced anyway, you might split up custody of your children in a shared parenting agreement. All of these agreements would constitute contracts.
If I enter into a contract that a previous contract I entered into says cannot be entered, what happens next? Your question is unclear on whether both contracts are entered by the same parties. Generally speaking, it is valid for parties A and B to enter both contracts unless the formation of the subsequent contract contravenes the rights of another entity who also is a party to the initial contract. If the initial contract only binds A and B, a subsequent contract between A and B is tantamount to mutually agreeing to modify the initial contract. If the initial contract between A and B prohibits entering a contract with C, A's formation of a contract with C constitutes A's breach of the initial contract. The specifics of both contracts and the circumstances would help determining whether the subsequent contract is void and null; whether it is valid at law or in equity for A to have indulged in forming a contract with C (for instance, if B breached the initial contract in a way that frustrates its purpose); or whether compelled performance of the [initial] contract between A and B results in A breaching his contract with C (or in the alternative, whether rescission of the subsequent contract is permissible). If both B and C an "innocent" parties, the court supposedly would look for a solution that preserved their rights to the extent possible, leaving A to carry the cost.
No enforceable contract can contain illegal clauses and work Contracts can not remove some rights and never can bypass obligations. Talking to the police at times is a requirement by law, as is taking to the labor board. Responding to a subpoena is legally forced by the court. An NDA might limit the amount what you can say, and a contract might limit who you can sue, but can not ban you from suing at all. In germany, a contract that tries to curtail such requirements would be Sittenwidrig and make all clauses that try to limit the rights fully Void and nill ab initio - in fact, it can be used as evidence against the drafting party that they tried to do so. So to stay legal and keep the clause working in the limited fashion where it is not demanded, the clause cuts the contract to explicitly exclude such situations.
Who entered the contract with the restaurant? In order for the restaurant to collect from a person, that person must have entered into a contract for the meal. That is, from the restaurant's point of view, they must have indicated that they would like some food and, since everyone knows how restaurants work, they know that the food will have to be paid for. Whether a given person entered a contract will depend on the specific facts. If they opened their mouth and said to the waiter something like “I’ll have the chicken”, they almost certainly entered a contract and they are obliged to pay. This is even if they had an expectation that someone else would pay for them - the restaurant is not involved in any other contracts or arrangements you might have with third-parties. You ordered, you’re on the hook. In a situation where you didn’t order, the answer is still probably yes, you have to pay. Again, because you know how restaurants work, by eating the meal that was placed in front of you rather than saying, “Just so you know, your contract for this meal is with that guy over there, is that okay?”, you probably entered a contract by your action of eating the meal. More broadly, when a group collectively enters a contract with the restaurant, they are probably agreeing with the restaurant that they will be jointly and severally bound. That is, each is responsible for all and the restaurant can pursue any or all of the people they have a contract with. A minor dining with their parents is probably not entering a contract with the restaurant. Not because minors can’t enter contracts (they absolutely can) but because of the normal expectation that the parent is entering the contract. This is because of a principle that contract terms may be implied by custom. That is, if there is a general understanding that this is the way things are done, then that will be something the law will enforce. This is a simple expedient adopted in order to make the world work - if every term of every contract had to be explicitly detailed in advance this would be a) unworkable and b) impossible. Even if there is no contract, the restaurant has equitable remedies like unjust enrichment. The diner has had the benefit of the meal and it would be unjust if the restaurant was left out of pocket. Equitable remedies can be even more complicated than contract law so we’ll just leave it at that. As for whether the restaurant will accept a promise from one diner that another will pay, that’s up to them.