Does a non-competition clause bond me to a minimum term of employment? I am an IT instructor in a private educational institution in British Columbia, Canada. They gave me a agreement which includes a section “non-competition clause” with these lines: He or she agrees that they will not, either directly or indirectly, either as a partner or as an officer, director, shareholder, employee or agent or servant of any corporation or partnership, for a period of two (2) years after leaving the said employment, solicit orders from any customers, clients or agents of the employer for such products as are sold by the employer in any area of the world. Is it a bond for 2 years for that institution? If I signed, will I have to work for 2 years with them? If I signed and later leave the institution and join another one, will this clause cause problems for me?
Some jurisdictions tend to favor non-compete agreements, others hold most of them to be unenforceable. From a very quick search, BC is a little reluctant to enforce them, but they can be valid if sensibly drawn. However, the text you included in the question is not a non-compete agreement at all, it is a non-solicitation agreement, a much less restrictive agreement, which is significantly more likely to be upheld. The agreement quoted in the question does not mandate the employee continuing to work for the employer for any minimum time, not two years, and not six months. (Another provision might specify a required notice period, but that was not quoted and may not be in the agreement.) The agreement quoted does not prohibit the employee, after s/he leaves the job, from working for a competitor of the former employer, not even for a brief period. What the agreement quoted does do, is prohibit the employee from asking individuals and businesses who were customers of the former employer for orders for the same products as are sold by the former employer. This applies to orders on behalf of the employee personally, on behalf of a new employer, or on behalf of a business in which the employee has some sort of ownership stake (such as partner or shareholder). That is all that the quoted language prohibits. This means that the employee cannot ask those who were customers of the old employer, to buy from or through him, the same products that the old employer sells. It does not mean that the former employee cannot sell such products, if the inquiry comes from the customer. This sort of agreement is primarily aimed at preventing a salesperson from taking a client list with him or her to a new employer, and trying to get them to move their business from the salesperson's old employer to his or her new employer or business. If the employee is primarily an instructor and does not also act as a salesperson, this agreement will have almost no effect on him or her. This site discusses such agreement an myths about them in BC, Canada. It says: Non-competition clauses can be enforced by courts in BC. It is true that employers face an uphill battle in getting a judge to agree to enforce a non-compete, but it can and does happen. If you are wondering whether your non-compete will stick, ask an employment lawyer. Enforceability of a non-compete depends on the specifics of the wording of the clause itself and the overall employment contract. Some key considerations are whether the clause is clearly worded, and whether it is limited in time, geography and scope of what is covered. If a non-competition clause is enforced by a judge, it will only be applied to prevent the employee from the specific activities listed. If the employer has missed something from the clause, or there is a “loop-hole,” that is generally fair game. Many contracts include non-solicitation (aka non-solicit) clauses, which are meant to prevent the employee from contacting clients. Non-solicitation clauses are still an uphill battle to enforce, but slightly easier than a non-competition clauses. This is because non-solicits don’t dictate where an employee can work, just what business they can seek out. Even if there is no contract, obligations to respect confidential information, and fiduciary duties (in the case of key employees) last beyond the end of employment and can limit competition. An online paper on &quot;Is my Employee’s Non-Compete Agreement Enforceable?&quot; by Lisa Stam says: In Canada, courts have generally been reluctant to uphold agreements that have the effect of restricting an individual’s ability to earn a living or pursue the job of their choice. Indeed, courts take the initial position that restrictive covenants in employment agreements are unenforceable, unless the employer can demonstrate otherwise. A restrictive covenant must jump through several hoops to be deemed enforceable. ... A non-solicitation agreement will allow a former employee to work for a competitor, but prevent them from soliciting the clients (and possibly the employees) of their former employer for a specific period of time. Former employees may have close relationships with clients. Allowing them to solicit these clients may give them an unfair advantage against the former employer in the marketplace. If the employee does not solicit the client, but the client leaves to follow them anyway, there is little an employer can do. ... If a court finds a restrictive covenant clause unreasonable, for example it restricts solicitation for 12 months when 6 would have been reasonable, they will not read it down to fix it. Canadian courts require the employer to get it right the first time and a flawed clause will therefore normally be unenforceable. In short, the above quoted agreement may not be enforceable. But if it is, it only restricts solicitation, not competition, and does not require the employee to work for the employer for a period of two years, or any other minimum time.
is contract text itself subject to copyright? What are my options? It largely depends on the originality of your contract. C &amp; J Management Corp. v. Anderson, 707 F.Supp.2d 858, 862 (2009) points to multiple references against preclusion of "a copyrightable interest in a contract". But you would need to prove that your competitor copied "original elements" of your contract including "a minimum degree of creativity and originality required to support a valid copyright". See Donald v. Uarco Business Forms, 478 F.2d 764, 766 (1973). Your post provides no information that would help identifying or ruling out this issue in your matter. Without realizing, you might have paid dearly for boilerplate language that your lawyer copied from somewhere else. Indeed, there is so much regurgitation and copy/pasting in the legal "profession" (judges included, as is notorious in judicial opinions they release and in the similarities --verbatim-- among the procedure law of many, many U.S. jurisdictions). That regurgitation is not bad in and of itself, though, since what matters is the expeditious administration of justice and the protection of your rights, rather than obtaining creative expressions authored by some lawyer. You might end up wasting valuable energy and money if you went after the competitor for something like this without first assessing the extent of originality in your contract. Focus instead on the much more detrimental fact that your competitor "plays dirty in general".
canada ontario Speaking from the perspective of law in Ontario, Canada, the clause may indeed be defective, contrary to the currently accepted answer. Consider what is mentioned at Termination Clauses and Continuation of Benefits: A Warning and Reminder for Employers in Ontario (August 2015): Employers often seek to limit their termination liability with termination clauses. If a termination clause does not meet the minimum requirements of the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (“ESA”), then the termination clause will not be valid and an employee will be entitled to reasonable notice at common law, thus increasing an employer’s liability [...] [...] The ESA requires employers to continue benefits during the ESA notice period when terminating employment without cause, whether or not working notice is provided. Where an employer fails to expressly state in a contract that an employee’s benefits will continue throughout the ESA notice period, the termination clause may be unenforceable. [...] In Stevens v Sifton Properties Limited (2012, ONSC) (“Stevens”), the termination clause stated that payment in lieu of notice in accordance with the ESA would be provided where the employer terminates the relationship without cause. The termination clause stipulated that such payment satisfied all future claims against the employer. The Court determined that the clause, in addressing benefits implicitly, did so in a way that “purports to take those [rights of benefits] away upon mere payment of the required pay in lieu of notice.” The Court held that this was contrary to the ESA, as the language denied benefit continuation during the ESA notice period and the termination clause was therefore void. Also, on the saving clause attempt, see Ontario Court of Appeal rules “saving clause” in employment agreement unenforceable (December 2019). Consider what's mentioned in Why employment contracts are now being rewritten all over the country (December, 2020): The Court of Appeal for Ontario has determined that all ambiguous language must be read in the employee’s favour and the presence of ambiguity will nullify a termination provision. Any ambiguity will be fatal. For example, simply stating that the employee will get the greater of their employment standards entitlements or some greater amount, if not worded precisely and correctly, will not hold up because the courts will find the language to be ambiguous. Also, see Ontario Court of Appeal Limits Severability of Termination Clauses in Employment Contracts (August 2020), which says: In addition, the Court of Appeal refused to give effect to the employment contract’s severability clause. The Court stated that a severability clause cannot affect clauses that have been made void by statute. Having concluded that the termination provisions must be considered together, the severability clause in this case could not be applied to sever the offending “for cause” portion of the termination provisions. All emphasis above is mine. I am not a lawyer.
This is not an NDA (non-disclosure agreement), it is a non-compete agreement. An NDA would tell you that you cannot disclose anything you did or saw at your old employer's place. A non-compete agreement is what you have here, an agreement that limits your ability to get work. If what you say is correct, then your employer is not exactly the brightest. You stay that you haven't been given a written notice, and your contract says that a "Notice of termination will only be valid if it is given in writing". So you haven't been given valid notice. There is no reason why you would sign the non-compete agreement. If they plan to fire you without notice if you don't agree, they have a problem: Your contract doesn't allow them to do that. And they have apparently not given any written notice yet. So what they can do is as soon as they decide that you are not signing, they can give you one month written notice.
You probably would not be &quot;obligated&quot; to do anything. However your employer also would not be &quot;obligated&quot; to continue employment. If you agreed to something verbally, that is a contract. Verbal contracts can be difficult to enforce, but in this case the employer does not need to enforce it but rather take the easier solution of terminating your employment.
Its just free enterprise, right? Well ... except when there is a law that says its not allowed. I am unfamiliar with Indian law but the relevant law in Australia is the Trade Practices Act which deals with this under the category of Misuse of Market Power. In a nutshell: A business with a substantial degree of power in a market is not allowed to use this power for the purpose of eliminating or substantially damaging a competitor or to prevent a business from entering into a market. By preferring their products over a competitor's in their search engine they are "... eliminating or substantially damaging a competitor ...".
If you want to protect yourself or any property interests you may have in this circumstance you have to talk to a lawyer. You cannot get (or trust) legal advice from the internet. I will, however, make the following personal observations: I only provide a W-9 to people who are paying me money, and who request it as a condition of paying me. I don't know of a legal requirement to supply it after the fact. However, not providing it to someone who did pay you more than $600 in a tax year could certainly make it difficult for them to comply with their tax filing obligations. I do not sign any agreements, assignments, or contracts, without what I consider to be fair consideration. E.g., if on leaving a job (as has happened) I am asked by a former employer to sign something that I am not already obligated to sign due to some prior contract, then I negotiate what is commonly called a "severance package." They pay me and/or extend benefits, and I sign something that limits their liability.
Am I right to assume that once the notice has been issued to the other party, me and the client still work on the project for 14 days until the notice period expires and that the client is required to pay for the work that has been done in those 14 days In the absence of any other wording to the contrary, a contract continues as normal up until the day of termination. The fact that a party has given notice to terminate merely establishes the termination date, unless the notice clause says something different. Note that there is nothing to stop you drafting a clause which explicitly states this. Indeed, it is often useful to explicitly state things which are already implied as it helps to avoid any dispute from arising in the first place.