Non Compete
37 RepliesJump to last post
I dug up this old thread to see what others my situation. I resigned about 7 months ago from Edward Jones–their legal firm Goldberg Wehrle LLC sent me a letter in May along with a copy of my employment agreement at Jones.
Today I was talking with someone and in reviewing the employment agreement I found a couple of issues: In the area where it reads: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed the foregoing agreement upon the understanding that it shall become effective on ________, 19_______. (This was NEVER Filled out) I signed it with my date. A general principal (Sign Stamped) it one week later. I did not start with the firm until 3 and a half months later. Since the IN WITNESS WHEREOF was Never dated and the delay of starting with the firm and another contact was not signed: Is this a valid contract? This contract was from 1993!I agree with you too. My only question is since I went ahead and took the job and signed the paperwork and they signed the paperwork (even though the signature and date were just stamps) is the contract in effect a legal contract based on intent? My gut feeling is since they failed to place a date start date on the contact and was left blank–the contact was invalid!
Yes, Bill Singer A/K/A rrbdlaw frequents this forum and has been helpful (if a bit hard on us ) in the past. You'll see he originally responded on the first page of this thread and answered a concern of mine on page two, I believe. Incidentally, my former firm never came after me other than to request a few thousand in advanced commissions, which I happily paid, considering I felt it was a small price for my freedom. I suspect that my former firm felt that they might have a tough fight on their hands, considering they ambushed me with a non-compete after I started working for them.Thanks for the comments, is there a lawyer in the blog?
This is a great example of us trying to help each other and probably causing more harm than good, at least if someone takes this advice. Just because we want something to be true, and would personally like to pull one over on the big firms, doesn’t make it true.
Disclaimer: This is some non-legal advice from someone no longer licensed to practice, who most likely never was licensed to practice in your state. Further, I never practiced in the employment area. If you want real legal advice, spend $150 and ask a local employment lawyer what he thinks, you are probably the 10th person who he has encountered in a similar situation (with some exceptions, HR is not exactly where the best and brightest end up), and if he charges you at all he will bill you for an hour at most. Having said that, here is my opinion. You might get a sympathetic judge, and my perception is that in the employment area some judges are more likely to give the employee the benefit of the doubt than they might be inclined to do if this was a different type of contract. However, here's a test I learned in law school that anyone can do. It's called the straight face test. Can you make this argument with a straight face to a judge? "When I signed this contract, I didn't intend for this contract to be enforced unless it was dated." It seems to me a disingenuous argument. Clearly you intended to enter into a binding contract, as did EDJ. Further, the execution date is not the relevant date to your non-compete, the date you terminate your employment is. There is also a decent argument that the "in witness thereof" line isn't even a part of the contract. My original advice stands, an in state employment attorney with any decent amount of experience could answer your question in 5 minutes. I went into more detail because I think sometimes when we hear an answer we want to hear, then we just run with it, and some on the board are saying what you want to hear. But I think that's a dangerous expectation, and if I had to guess I would think that the contract being undated will not be considered a fatal flaw. My non-practicing 2 cents.Thanks! I agree with you–and you are right, I would love to stick it to em! Maybe it’s because their lawyers sent me three letters accusing me of contacting clients after I left when I know that I followed the rules to the letter of the non-compete…It made me very very angry. There is noting worst than being accused of doing something and being innocent. That’s all I received was letters–no followup no other action!
I know exactly where you are coming from. .EJ likes to let you know they are still watching you..I have all my ex Jones transfers sign a not soliciated letter. Also, dont talk any trash to any Jones people..even the ones you were close to, because that info also reaches home office.Thanks! I agree with you–and you are right, I would love to stick it to em! Maybe it’s because their lawyers sent me three letters accusing me of contacting clients after I left when I know that I followed the rules to the letter of the non-compete…It made me very very angry. There is noting worst than being accused of doing something and being innocent. That’s all I received was letters–no followup no other action!
[quote=Broker7]
I know exactly where you are coming from. .EJ likes to let you know they are still watching you..I have all my ex Jones transfers sign a not soliciated letter. Also, dont talk any trash to any Jones people..even the ones you were close to, because that info also reaches home office.[/quote]A not solicited letter? Interesting. What does the letter say exactly? Did anyone balk at the notion of signing one?
Like many issues, it originated with EDJ. However, it does have broader implications for the rest of us. Someday I’ll share a story about the current noncompete I have, but I’m holding that story under my hat for the time being in case I somehow get outed.