My question involves labor and employment law for the state of: Colorado
Hello, my question involves specific interpretation of language in a non-compete contract. I took the contract to a lawyer to make certain that I understood it completely. I was advised to proceed based upon the 'interpretation' of that lawyer.
Since then, my former employer has sent an email to me saying that I am violating the contract based on a completely opposite 'interpretation' of the same clause.
I am aware that if this goes to litigation, a judge can rule either in my favor or my former employers based upon his/her 'interpretation' OR it can be determined that the language of the clause in question is 'ambiguous' and in that case the ruling may be all together different.
I am asking for additional 'interpretations' on the below language, specifically relating to whether this clause specifies dealing with a business OR dealing with individuals.
Thank you in advance for your time.
"Employee will not, directly or indirectly, engage or invest in, manage, operate, finance, control, or participate in the ownership, management, operation, financing, or control of, be employed by, associated with, or in any manner connected with, or render services or advice to, any business whose products or activities compete in whole or in part with the products or activities of the Company, within an area within a 10-mile radius of the Company. Employee agrees that this covenant is reasonable with respect to its duration, geographical area, and scope."
Hello, my question involves specific interpretation of language in a non-compete contract. I took the contract to a lawyer to make certain that I understood it completely. I was advised to proceed based upon the 'interpretation' of that lawyer.
Since then, my former employer has sent an email to me saying that I am violating the contract based on a completely opposite 'interpretation' of the same clause.
I am aware that if this goes to litigation, a judge can rule either in my favor or my former employers based upon his/her 'interpretation' OR it can be determined that the language of the clause in question is 'ambiguous' and in that case the ruling may be all together different.
I am asking for additional 'interpretations' on the below language, specifically relating to whether this clause specifies dealing with a business OR dealing with individuals.
Thank you in advance for your time.
"Employee will not, directly or indirectly, engage or invest in, manage, operate, finance, control, or participate in the ownership, management, operation, financing, or control of, be employed by, associated with, or in any manner connected with, or render services or advice to, any business whose products or activities compete in whole or in part with the products or activities of the Company, within an area within a 10-mile radius of the Company. Employee agrees that this covenant is reasonable with respect to its duration, geographical area, and scope."
Non-Compete Agreements: Ambiguous Language in a Non-Compete Agreement
0 commentaires:
Enregistrer un commentaire