Leaving Distributor to work for Manufacturer - Agreement Worries

[justalayman]

Hey hey hey folks!!! For heaven's sake please read my posts!!! Non-compete and non-sol clauses are two completely separate and different things!!!

The OP doesn't have a non-compete problem, he has a non-sol problem. He thinks he has a non-compete problem because he's confused by the terminology. However if you read every word of his posts you will see it's actually a non-sol problem. My Esteemed Colleagues continuing to argue back and forth about non-competes is not only irrelevant, it confuses the OP even more than he already is.

Again, please read my posts if you want a better understanding of all this. [tired emoticon here]

yes, I am well aware of the fact they are different. Not sure why you would think otherwise. I responded to the non-solicitation issue and the possibility of an even greater issue previously. At this point it has become simply defining what a non-compete contract would prohibit.


but to the question of enforceability (of a non-compete)

boc 16600

16600. Except as provided in this chapter, every contract by which
anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or
business of any kind is to that extent void.

the exceptions follow in subsequent sections

and while the OP has other issues to be concerned with, the fact his employer is attempting to enforce a non-compete contract, the defining and discussion of the non-compete is relevant to the OP's issues.

but EE:

(Please keep in mind folks that I write and enforce these types of contracts for a living. So I know what of I speak. )

I hope that is not taking place in the US, unless I have missed something as to your profession.

 

[eerelations]

The OP is calling it a non-compete but then he goes on to say the reason the CEO is so mad at him is because he (the OP) is planning to take away the CEO's customers - which is clearly a non-solicitation issue.

I can't count anymore the number of times employees - including very senior employees at the executive level - get the terms "non-competition" "non-solicitation" and "confidentiality" hopelessly mixed up. (Sort of like all those people who get "right to work" and "at-will" mixed up.) I think at this point it's probably at least several hundred. And these are just the ones I've met in person!

Given that OP has admitted that he is planning to take away the angry CEO's customers ("...I would be going after the same type of customers trying to sell my one brand directly working for the manufacture. It could possibly sway my current employers customers to start buying my brand vs. The brands that my current employer carry...") and that this is what is angering the CEO, I think that non-solicitation is the real issue here.

 

[justalayman]

eerelations;3297133]The OP is calling it a non-compete but then he goes on to say the reason the CEO is so mad at him is because he (the OP) is planning to take away the CEO's customers - which is clearly a non-solicitation issue.

the statement provided is a non-compete agreement.

I'm going over my employee agreement and there are some pretty bold wordings in it that would assume that they are forcing me to not work for any competitor or similar business for 5 years and within a 10 mile radius

that is not an NSA and even the boss's statements could be nothing more than a threat regarding the implied NSO within an NCO.

and as usual, this is one the OP really needs to seek counsel where the specific document can be read and an opinion given.