Preparation of Exhibits

[Tbrent2000]

State of Alabama

I am being sued for relocation expenses under a contract I signed following resignation. I denied the claim citing primarily the doctrine of unclean hands.

My employer hired me with the explicit (verbal) commitment that I would not be asked to divulge a product specific process improvement that they were aware I had developed for a previous employer. A pattern ensued over the next 14 months whereby I was progressively forced into a position that meant I would have to do so in order to perform my required job. The problem is, I have no documentation to this effect, though I can create a timeline showing the escalation of demands. The employer owns documentation (including my former log books) that would support this timeline. How should I present my evidence? My wife says present a graphic timeline with names, approximate dates, and actions. Is this sufficient? Do I do this on a sheet of 8-1/2" x 11" or poster board? How should exhibits be marked (the trial notice indicated all exhibits must be marked)?

Finally, how much detail should I go into regarding the trade secret they were trying to get me to divulge? The case would be very straightforward to anyone with technical or even manufacturing experience, but I'm not sure what the court will expect (pictures, figures, etc.)

Thanks,
-TimWhat is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

[HappyWanderer]

I have no expertise to guide you, but would love to ask you a question. When I go to Wikipedia, I find:

Unclean hands, sometimes clean hands doctrine or dirty hands doctrine[1] is an equitable defense in which the defendant argues that the plaintiff is not entitled to obtain an equitable remedy on account of the fact that the plaintiff is acting unethically or has acted in bad faith with respect to the subject of the complaint—that is, with "unclean hands".[2] The defendant has the burden of proof to show the plaintiff is not acting in good faith. The doctrine is often stated as "those seeking equity must do equity" or "equity must come with clean hands".

It doesn't seem like the employer is asking for an equitable remedy, they just want to enforce the contract you signed. Seems like a simple breach of contract to me. What do you hope to gain by the claim of unclean hands?

[David Jonathan]

I think he's asking something different then when you're reading.

He worked for company A where he came up with this "idea" which now belongs to company A.

He quit company A, and started working for company B, under the verbal contract that he would not give company A's secret to Company B.

Company B put him in a position to extract the "idea" which belonged to Company A.

Company B is now suing him for the idea that belongs to Company A. probably claiming that he used it while working for them and is not entitled to have it.

He's denying the claim because it's company A's "idea" and not his (even if he came up with it), and even tho he may have used the "idea" while working under duress for Company B that doesn't give Company B the right to have it, because they acted unethically in their way of getting him to use it.

am I even close?

--Dave.

[HappyWanderer]

I agree with you David. But, what does that have to do with unclean hands?

[Tbrent2000]

Originally Posted by HappyWanderer

I agree with you David. But, what does that have to do with unclean hands?

I am claiming that I did not leave voluntarily, but rather was forced to resign (in fact, I went back to work for my previous employer), because they put me in a position of having to violate my prior contract or fail to meet the objectives they set for me. Keep in mind, we explicitly agreed I would not work on this project before I took the job, but they managed to put me in charge of it within a year of employment. My argument is that the repayment agreement is unenforceable because they asked me to do something wrong, so they should not benefit by my leaving.

I think the only retort to this would be, "Did you remind them of the contract?". The answer to this is yes, on at least three occasions, to three different superiors. In one case my direct supervisor took me to lunch and told me very surreptitiously that our VP (the one who hired me with the express understanding that I would not work on that project) expressed frustration that I brought it up in a meeting where I was asked why we could not improve the process for that product and advised me not to do so again. This was a clear intimidation tactic.

Of course, all I have is my testimony, so how do I present it?

Thanks in advance.

[HappyWanderer]

My only point was the defense of unclean hands does not apply to you as the employer is not seeking an equitable remedy. Again, while I don't have enough knowledge to help, I might be able to point out some problems with your case.

I am claiming that I did not leave voluntarily, but rather was forced to resign

So, you admit you had a contract. And, you admit it was breached. Again, back to the internet, you need to prove the contract was impossible to preform, impracticable or the other party by his actions frustrated the purpose of the contract. Both parties are supposed to act in good faith and fair dealing.

The problem is it seems like you have two "contracts" at best. The written one and the explicit verbal understanding one. By the way you've worded things I bet the verbal understanding was made before you signed the employment contract with the repayment agreement. Right? Wikipedia is amazing. Look up "parol evidence rule" and see if it applies.

It seems you are relying on the supposed violation of the verbal assurances for everything. I'm not seeing how you were "forced" to resign and go back to work at your previous employer. You could have just refused to do the things you feel were in violation of the verbal assurances. Then you'd have a much better argument.

Your testimony is the only "evidence" you have. I've always wondered how a person who is their own lawyer presents their testimony. It would be ackward for you to ask yourself questions and I thought you weren't supposed to do a narrative as testimony. I haven't been impressed by those here, but I'm sure some must have been involved in a case somewhere and maybe they'll let you know.

Not that you asked but, I don't see you having a winner here though. Did the employment contract have a loser pays legal fees portion for enforcement? Their attorney may present a big bill for his work along with a judgment amount if it does. Since you're already in up to your ass, you might see an attorney to help you if there is as trial lawyers don't work cheap.

[Tbrent2000]

Originally Posted by HappyWanderer

My only point was the defense of unclean hands does not apply to you as the employer is not seeking an equitable remedy. Again, while I don't have enough knowledge to help, I might be able to point out some problems with your case.

So, you admit you had a contract. And, you admit it was breached. Again, back to the internet, you need to prove the contract was impossible to preform, impracticable or the other party by his actions frustrated the purpose of the contract. Both parties are supposed to act in good faith and fair dealing.

The problem is it seems like you have two "contracts" at best. The written one and the explicit verbal understanding one. By the way you've worded things I bet the verbal understanding was made before you signed the employment contract with the repayment agreement. Right? Wikipedia is amazing. Look up "parol evidence rule" and see if it applies.

It seems you are relying on the supposed violation of the verbal assurances for everything. I'm not seeing how you were "forced" to resign and go back to work at your previous employer. You could have just refused to do the things you feel were in violation of the verbal assurances. Then you'd have a much better argument.

Your testimony is the only "evidence" you have. I've always wondered how a person who is their own lawyer presents their testimony. It would be ackward for you to ask yourself questions and I thought you weren't supposed to do a narrative as testimony. I haven't been impressed by those here, but I'm sure some must have been involved in a case somewhere and maybe they'll let you know.

Not that you asked but, I don't see you having a winner here though. Did the employment contract have a loser pays legal fees portion for enforcement? Their attorney may present a big bill for his work along with a judgment amount if it does. Since you're already in up to your ass, you might see an attorney to help you if there is as trial lawyers don't work cheap.

Yes I did sign a contract and I signed after a verbal agreement. It was also verbally recognized after the contract was signed by managers of the company when I brought it up - so I guess I could argue that the written contract was not a final contract. Regardless, I also claim wrongful conduct, including misrepresentation, which is an exception to the parol evidence rule.

I agree I'd have a stronger case if I had refused to do the work they asked, but when I was fired, it would be an entirely different kind of case. As the economic hardship this would have caused would have been severe, I hope a judge will accept that I felt reasonably compelled to resign.

I did have an attorney who advised I had a decent chance of winning but that I represent myself because her fees would eat up any savings if I won and greatly increase my exposure if I lost. The employer cannot and is not claiming legal fees, but is asking for court costs and interest, which are minimal.

It is my understanding that the civil court system is established primarily to allow the citizen to represent themselves and I have been assured that the courts generally give great latitude and guidance to those exercising this option, so hopefully my testimony will not be an issue.

Keep it coming though, this is extremely helpful in helping me formulate my argument. I promise to post a summary of the judgement so you can see our wonderful justice system at work (or maybe just see me go down in flames).

[HappyWanderer]

Last time I'll preface my writing with this, just assume it true if I write again, I don't often know my ass from a hole in the ground. All I know is what I read on the internet combined with at least an average ability to understand what I read and which is combined with some life experience

Wouldn't you have to prove the misrepresentation was at the time of the formation of the contract? It seems really hard to prove they entered into the contract with that intention. Even a time line of increasing steps wouldn't do it.

Are you even allowed to present varying theories and see which one sticks? On the one hand you're saying misrepresentation at formation prevented a contract being created and on the other you accept a contract was formed but that their change of heart later rose to the level of...well, of what? Impossibility and impractibility seemed really hard things to prove. They were talking about houses burning down and wars and famine on Wikipedia. You don't have this here. Impracticability needed:

1.There must be an occurrence of a condition, the nonoccurrence of which was a basic assumption of the contract,
2.The occurrence must make performance extremely expensive or difficult
3.This difficulty was not anticipated by the parties to the contract (note: some jurisdictions require that there be no measure within the contract itself to allocate risk between the parties)

While you have #1 even though it will be hard to prove, #2 is going to be a lot harder. #3 is another conflicting claim. If the occurence of them saying you don't have to disclose was a basic assumption of the contract, how could it not be anticipated? I'd also check on the law in the state you're getting sued in as the requirement you pay back relocation looks like an allocation of risk between the parties and could prevent the claim alltogether.

Verbally recognized after the contract is also hard because it looks like an additional term and not one part of the contract. What did you give up for that additional term? The term they (wiki) used was consideration. Did you give consideration?

I'm sure you can get your testimony in in some way. How do you do it? Do you just start talking or do you ask yourself questions?

so they should not benefit by my leaving.

How did they benefit from your leaving? They have to find a new employee. They are out the money spent to relocate you. The reason for the clause was to encourage you to stay and keep them from losing out if you leave. You left. They're hurt. That's why you're getting sued. You may have a reason for leaving. It seems like you may not and if you do have one it will be hard to prove.