Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Company got acquired, new contract seems oppressive

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 291 posts

Re: Ask HN: Company got acquired, new contract seems oppressive

#261

Post by InclinedPlane »

mikeash wrote: post #233
InclinedPlane wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both parties need to initial the crossed-out sections for it to be fully legally binding. It's best to just ask for a new version without the sections you don't want to agree to, it's no use trying to fly under the radar, that's dishonest.

Not being legally binding is perfectly fine here, isn't it? In a situation like this, you're crossing out sections because you don't want to sign the contract unless those are gone. Both "this isn't valid at all" and "this is valid minus the stuff I crossed out" are acceptable. And I don't see this as "fly under the radar" at all. They should look at the contract they get back from you, just as you should look at the…

No, I mean that your edits won't be legally binding, but the rest will. It's natural to assume that any changes to a contract would be mentioned, it's unnatural to assume that the other party must pour over the contract for late revisions made in silence.

Re: Ask HN: Company got acquired, new contract seems oppressive

#262

Post by wlesieutre »

herge wrote: post #168
ExhibitAClause2 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whats the best way to go about finding one on short notice in a generic major city?

Reddit's /r/legaladvise regularly advises asking the local bar association for a good recommendation.

/r/legaladvice is the one you want (American spelling). 45,000 subscribed users versus 8.

Re: Ask HN: Company got acquired, new contract seems oppressive

#263

Post by Lawtonfogle »

pc86 wrote: post #246
Lawtonfogle wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see it as trying to fly under the radar. I see it as 'you demands are so stupid you don't deserve a verbal response'. These sorts of contracts are so lopsided that not getting a verbal response is probably the most polite response they will be getting from me.

Are you a professional? If someone can't have a conversation about an employment contract any more politely than "no verbal response" I have to wonder how they ever get hired in the first place.

Yes.

The "must disclose any existing inventions or ideas to the company now and that anything not enumerated belongs to them" is what does it. Almost none of my offers have ever included such a line. Any company trying to push that does not deserve a respectful response.

I can have a conversation about the contract. But when the contract includes that, it is like being given a serious minimum wage offer.

Re: Ask HN: Company got acquired, new contract seems oppressive

#264

Post by Lawtonfogle »

InclinedPlane wrote: post #260
Lawtonfogle wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see it as trying to fly under the radar. I see it as 'you demands are so stupid you don't deserve a verbal response'. These sorts of contracts are so lopsided that not getting a verbal response is probably the most polite response they will be getting from me.

You think that will fly in court? A contract is an agreement between two parties. If there are provisions in the contract known only to one party that renders it potentially invalid, because the other didn't agree to it.

Agree to what? The contract isn't signed, it is returned with the offending parts stricken.

Re: Ask HN: Company got acquired, new contract seems oppressive

#265

Post by Lawtonfogle »

woah wrote: post #189
Lawtonfogle wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see it as trying to fly under the radar. I see it as 'you demands are so stupid you don't deserve a verbal response'. These sorts of contracts are so lopsided that not getting a verbal response is probably the most polite response they will be getting from me.

That's pretty silly. Just quit if that's how you feel.

That's pretty silly. Just strike out the parts you don't agree with if that's how you feel.

Is there a reason why one should quit instead of negotiating the contract while also letting them know you are offended by their initial offer? (Of course, if my current employer pushed something like that on me, I would be starting to look around.)

If anything, quitting is likely worse than being let go because you likely have less of a claim with regards to unemployment (a lawyer would need to specify the actual details).

Re: Ask HN: Company got acquired, new contract seems oppressive

#266

Post by mikeash »

pvg wrote: post #258
mikeash wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes I work in the US, and no I've never signed anything like that. I've never had anybody who rented me an apartment or sold me car insurance try to tell me that their agreement was "standard." I mean, I'm sure the insurance stuff at least is literally standard, in the sense that they have a single document they give to everybody. But I've never had anyone use the word "standard" in any context except a stupid contra…

Are you saying you work in the US, as a full-time employee and you've never signed an AoI agreement? It's certainly possible but it sounds very unusual.

I don't believe I have. Certainly never anything as far-reaching as this one. I've never worked for a big company, partly for reasons like this.

Re: Ask HN: Company got acquired, new contract seems oppressive

#267

Post by mikeash »

InclinedPlane wrote: post #261
mikeash wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not being legally binding is perfectly fine here, isn't it? In a situation like this, you're crossing out sections because you don't want to sign the contract unless those are gone. Both "this isn't valid at all" and "this is valid minus the stuff I crossed out" are acceptable. And I don't see this as "fly under the radar" at all. They should look at the contract they get back from you, just as you should look at the…

No, I mean that your edits won't be legally binding, but the rest will. It's natural to assume that any changes to a contract would be mentioned, it's unnatural to assume that the other party must pour over the contract for late revisions made in silence.

So something you crossed out and initialized would still be considered binding because the other party didn't also initial it? I don't understand how that could be. I could see that if you added clauses those new clauses wouldn't apply, but if it's clear that one party never agreed to a clause, how could it still be in effect?

Re: Ask HN: Company got acquired, new contract seems oppressive

#268

Post by johnward »

ghaff wrote: post #254
throwaway549328 wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I were you and in California I would ignore anything related to non-compete without feeling any need to modify it, as I heard from multiple sources that they're totally unenforceable: http://ymsllp.com/news-and-publications/with-limited-excepti... and also against the cultural spirit people actually believe in. It's as though that stuff weren't present at all. If you're outside California, I would in your position…

One of the problems--if the non-compete is with a large company--is that a lot of potential companies that you might go to work for will walk as soon as they find out you have a non-compete. I worked for a small firm for a number of years and we passed on a couple of hires because they had broad non-competes that could have at least theoretically applied to us. As far as our business office was concerned, it just was…

Even though the chances of the broad non-compete actually being enforceable are low the threat of being tied up in a litigation is real and expensive. My gut feeling is that they would not enforce it on lowly engineer like myself but if they did I couldn't afford to actually fight it.

Re: Ask HN: Company got acquired, new contract seems oppressive

#270

Post by jacquesm »

johnward wrote: post #269
johnward wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just did that.

HR is unable to produce it...

That's a weird situation to be in. If they can't reproduce it now they may not be able to produce it at all effectively they've just said they lost your contract which for any self respecting HR department is an absolute failure in their duty. Imagine, if they don't have it, what could have possibly happened to it?

Of does 'unable to produce' translate to 'unwilling to produce'?

Post reply on HN