All The Lies That Are My Life, or, JohnT vs. his Parents.

[Japher]

I thought you might like this too

House Bill 890, amendment to Title 47, Chapter 25

[JohnT]

"If they had a supposed lawyer write that ****, they should get their money back."

What I think happened was this: my stepmother got some legal software package that had this agreement in it. Deciding that the one in the package was "a good start", she (who literally thinks she knows everything*) added words and phrases to "strengthen" the agreement. I am pretty sure of this because certain sections sound just like her, even down to using favorite words and phrases.

*Especially when it comes to law. Her experience? She was a clerk one summer in a courthouse in Rhea County, TN when she was a teenager.

[JohnT]

Interesting Japher, but unfortunately I'm not a licensed or certified professional.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by JohnT
The non-compete spells out that injunctive relief is the remedy that will be applied by Acme if I act against the non-compete. Nothing more specified than that.

California at least, and I think this is standard, has a very high bar on injunctive relief. You have to prove "irreparable harm" would occur if the injunction wasn't granted - in other words, something so grave or so unique that money damages wouldn't be enough, or the value of money damages couldn't be reasonably proved.

Generally, things like transfer of a unique asset to a third party, or some destruction of an intangible right or interest, for example, by failing to secure a copyright or other legal claim.

The onus is on them to enforce the "agreement." They can't sue someone else for employing you, because they have neither a contract relationship with the other party, nor is there an action or inaction by the other party against them that creates a tort. I mean, they "can" sue, but not unless they want to commit legal suicide - dismissal of their complaint, sanctions from the court, suit from the party they sued for malicious prosecution, and you have a tort claim against them for contract interference and interference with a prospective economic advantage.

The only thing they can do in the legal system is attempt to enjoin you from accepting or remaining in employment, and then they have to prove to a judge they have a valid agreement, and a legal basis for preventing you from remaining employed.

Now practically speaking, they may do **** like say they have a non-compete agreement, or otherwise slander you if a prospective employer happens to call to verify references. That's hard to prove if folks are not inclined to testify, but that's something that can always be gotten around - at least with a little help you can do some fishing and see what they try to pull along those lines.

[SpencerH]

Isnt the crux of the matter whether you do indeed have information from working at 'Acme' that is confidential and would unfairly hurt their business if you competed with them?

If you swept the floors at Acme but are starting a software company that will produce similar products then the answer is no. If you produced software for Acme and/or had relationships with Acme clients then the answer may be yes. It looks to me from the link (that Japher provided) that the law in the Alabama-Tenn is inclined against non-compete agreements but that they do enforce them with the right conditions. Do you think that you had access to information/customers/secrets that would in fact allow you to unfairly compete with Acme? Given that you are the son of the company President and had a position of some responsibility, I think you may have at least a strike against you.

[chequita guevara]

Give 'em hell, John!

[Japher]

SpencerH: That's assuming that he did sign the agreement, which JohnT says he didn't. Even so, he should address it first as he did not, but be prepared to argue the legalities of the contract.

Personally, I think the conflict of interest runs pretty deep, in that the president was his father. Thus, JohnT was probably learning from a pretty young age all things to become a successful buisness man, and not just once he was highered. These matter would get tough to distinguish and would not hold up in a court of law (advantage John). John does have an understanding of the inner workings of the company (advantage Acme). He could of learned these things from his dad, even without being an employee (advantage John). Still, Acme is hindering his right to earn a living (fraudulently or not), and is thus violating free trade (advantage John). Acme has a supposed non-compete contract (advantage Acme). That contract is a bunch of crap, and is written (as MtG has pointed out) by someone with no more knowledge of the law than I do (advantage John). The contract is cosigned by his father, who apparently has no right to enter contracts with employees without his wicked step-mothers approval (advantage John). How she approves of such contract is unknown to anyone, so it could be assumed that if she does not sign the contracts herself that the contract is void (advantage John). It is dangerous to assume...

At least it will be all over in Aug. either way, but it is more the mean time that is a concern. This whole mess has saddened me, and makes me wonder what things I have signed in the past for my company.

[JohnT]

Pretty busy right now so I'll talk more later, but I did want to address this:

"Thus, JohnT was probably learning from a pretty young age all things to become a successful buisness man, and not just once he was highered. "

My father got into this industry when I was (checks calendar) 14 years old, and didn't start his own company into this industry until I was 17 (barriers of entry are pretty low).

Being a typical teenager, I had no concern about what Dad did, thinking it "boring and stupid." I did occassional work for them, but at the most basic of levels. It wasn't until I was out of college for a few years that I was approached by my father to take a position in the company (I was 24).

My parents had a combined 5 years experience in this industry before they started Acme. I currently have 13.

[JohnT]

I do not remember signing the document, though the thing did not look entirely unfamiliar when I received a copy from Controller #18. This is why I am not, currently, arguing that it is a forgery rather arguing it based upon its merits. But when/if this goes to court, we will demand the original and if they can't produce one, well then forgery it will be.

As mentioned by others in this thread and by my lawyer, the thing is pretty laughable in and of itself and no court will uphold the language contained within.

[Spiffor]

Go JohnT Teach them a lesson !
You can't let these *******s get away with it.

[Joseph]

Good luck John

[JohnT]

An Update

The 15 days have passed with no reply to the above letter from my lawyer, meaning... what, exactly?

Well, the ball is in my court. They didn't send a reply, so now, for the first time since this all started, I have nothing new to react to.

I accused them of defrauding me, and they let it go with no denial. I demand my money, and they, again, refused to give it to me. I rebut their accusal of being a thief, and throw it back at them.

Over the past few days I have recieved commitments of... witnesses, testimony, incriminating paperwork and the like (including the most obvious, my wife ). There are a fair number of people who, prior to I, feel as if they've got shafted by my parents and they are rooting for me to sue... as are a number of you.

Thing is, any lawsuit I would hurl against them would be... well, worth my while. I wouldn't, couldn't sue them for a mere $75k - they'd probably fight it leaving me with nothing at best. I'd have to hit with a figure that will make them say "WTF?!" There has been a lot of pain here, and that will have to be accounted for as well.

Shiite. Am I just talking myself into a lawsuit? Or is this the rational, next step in defending my professional reputation and future livelihood?

Advice would be welcome. Danke.

Btw, before you say it, I am not talking to my stepmother until all this is resolved - I am not resolving it through her.

[Shi Huangdi]

Well if I were in your shoes I'd probably just want to clean my hands of the matter and never deal with them again. If you can avoid the issue going to court, that may be best since you never know what may happen there; you could have an "old fashioned" jury that may just see this as a son being disrespectful. Of course that would be stupid of them, but there is no guarantee that a jury wouldn't be dumb.

[monkspider]

wow! this all sounds incredibly unpleasent. You have my prayers John. The one good thing about coming from the proletarion is that you don't have to worry about your parents sueing you.

I wish you the best, whatever course of action you take!

[JohnT]

"The one good thing about coming from the proletarion is that you don't have to worry about your parents sueing you."

Actually, they could. Wouldn't matter if they had standing (let the judge figure that one out), they could do it just to waste my time and resources.