Talk:Non-compete clause
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a quality rating on the assessment scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance assessment on the assessment scale. | |
[edit] Proposed merge
I agree with merging this article with non-compete agreement - which title should be the target of the merge? BD2412 T 21:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with the merge. I have a slight preference for the non-compete clause because many times the non-compete clause is contained within a larger document (such as an asset purchase agreement). Although the word "agreement" is broad enough to emcompass a single clause, the word is often viewed to mean the document itself rather than the underlying mutual agreement of the parties. In addition, as it stands I think that the non-compete clause is a better article, so its history deserves to be carried on the main page rather than the redirect page. However, I don't think it matters too much which title we use as long as the redirect is made to the other title. -- DS1953 talk 22:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with DS1953 -- although it's possible to merge histories, depending. Anyway, clause is probably more common in a technical sense, although the general sense usually uses "agreement", but then they're talking about the clause anyway. --Dhartung | Talk 03:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- Merge complete. Is there a reason this article goes into such depth about Virginia? Is VA that different from the rest of the country? An "in the United States" section would seem about 50 times ;-) as useful, even if it doesn't go into so many specifics. --Dhartung | Talk 23:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- The enforceability of CNCs is governed by state common law. Although many states have similar requirements for determining the enforceability of a CNC, there are numerous variations. The requirements in Virginia are not the same as they are in Delaware or California. To maintain accuracy in the article, someone would need to research the variations and general requirements of a CNC. I have researched the Virginia law, and although I do not warrant its accuracy, it is supported by stare decisis. I suggest maintaining different sections for each state until broad generalizations can be made accurately. -Bpiereck 22:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- As a broad generalization, I propose a statement that in the employee - employer context, reasonable non-compete agreements are valid in almost all states. What is considered to be 'reasonable' varies from state to state. California is an exception. In California, employee - employer non-compete restraints are void regardless of their reasonableness. Kindsvater 22 September 2006
- Merge complete. Is there a reason this article goes into such depth about Virginia? Is VA that different from the rest of the country? An "in the United States" section would seem about 50 times ;-) as useful, even if it doesn't go into so many specifics. --Dhartung | Talk 23:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with DS1953 -- although it's possible to merge histories, depending. Anyway, clause is probably more common in a technical sense, although the general sense usually uses "agreement", but then they're talking about the clause anyway. --Dhartung | Talk 03:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
User DS1953 (who I believe is not a California attorney) had added language, twice, conclusively stating that a non-compete agreement held enforceable in a state will automatically be held enforceable in California. As an attorney who has litigated and researched this precise issue, and having first hand experience preventing a non-California noncompete judgment from being enforced in California, I deleted this inaccurate statement. However, instead of deleting it in its entirety, which would be appropriate, I changed it to reflect that this issue has not yet been conclusively decided by an appellate court. In Application Group v Hunter Group (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 881, 887 fn. 3, the California court of appeals noted that a Maryland court had adjudicated that a noncompete agreement was valid. Nonetheless, the California court of appeal held that the noncompete agreement was void and unenforceable within California. The full faith and credit clause issue was not addressed. Kindsvater 22 September 2006
- You are right that I am not a California attorney - but I was not the one who added the language you refer to. All I did was add "citation needed" because someone else added the language without giving any support. My assumption has always been, as you say, that a California court would NOT enforce a judgment which was against the state's public policy. I don't claim to know the answer. -- DS1953 talk 03:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Is there a reason there is an external link to "Non-Compete Enforecement Blog: Articles and Resources"? THis is a Michigan law blog. Can we delete? slava 04:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
It is intersting that CA is a big part of this page. Actually, each state has a different take on non-compete clauses. And people looking at this issue won't get far unless they know what the law is in their state. Is there a reason why we should not have information for all 50 states? In order to be useful, there are several critera which vary state to state (ie seperate consideration).
