Skip to main content

NON COMPETE CLAUSE

 NON-COMPETE CLAUSE

By P.Hema

A non-compete agreement legally binds a current or former employee from competing with an employer for some period of time after employment ceases. Under such an agreement, the employee must not reveal any trade secrets learned during employment. These contracts outline how long the employee must refrain from working with a competitor, the geographic location, and/or the market. Some states, like California, refuse to enforce non-compete agreements. Non-compete agreements can prevent workers from getting a job in their field if they leave a position.

Non-compete agreements are signed when the relationship between employer and employee begins. They give the employer control over specific actions of the employee even after that relationship ends.

Some of the terms of the contract may include the length of time the employee is bound to the non-compete agreement, the geographic location, and/or market. These agreements may also be called a "covenant not to compete" or a "restrictive covenant."

Non-compete ensure the employee will not use information learned during employment to start a business and compete with the employer once work is over. It also ensures the employer keeps its place in the market.

Non-compete agreements are common in the media. A television station might have legitimate concerns that a popular meteorologist may siphon viewers away if they began working for a rival station in the same area. In most jurisdictions, this would be considered a reasonable cause to sign a non-compete agreement.

Non-compete is also common in the information technology (IT) sector, where employees are often charged with proprietary information that may be deemed valuable to a company. Other places where these agreements are found include the financial industry, the corporate world, and manufacturing.

Most states adopt some sort of standard that a non-compete agreement must not be egregious in the length of time or geographic scope and shouldn't meaningfully restrict a worker's ability to find employment. However, jurisdictions differ widely in interpreting what terms of a non-compete agreement would be overly onerous.

Non-compete agreements are distinct from non-disclosure agreements (NDAs), which generally don't prevent an employee from working for a competitor. Instead, NDAs prevent the employee from revealing information the employer considers to be proprietary or confidential, such as client lists, underlying technology, or information about products in development. 

A non-compete agreement may not daunt employees who plan on staying put in a job or who prize being trusted with valuable information. But employees who sign non-compete agreements may find themselves leaving their industry entirely if it is too hard to find a new job after signing one.

 

 



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree