41–47 of 47 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Slavery wasn't a matter of contract law.
Indeed, and once non-compete agreements are no longer enforced in Mass., non-compete agreements will no longer be a matter of contract law.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed, and once non-compete agreements are no longer enforced in Mass., non-compete agreements will no longer be a matter of contract law.
You're not addressing my point. Slaves (in the most obvious case) didn't enter into unfair contracts to make themselves slaves. So, you get points for snark, but not for advancing an argument.
Slavery would be a matter of contract law in the present day if it was permitted -- since people would be allowed to sign themselves into slavery in return for whatever they could get out of it.
You're not "allowed" to sign yourself into slavery, even if you want to (because the state won't enforce the contract).
Non-competes will have the same properties above (if this bill is passed), therefore I suggest that slavery is a valid analogy for non-compete agreement in this context.
This opens up the opportunity for further discussion. For example it can be argued that the state is defending your freedoms by refusing to enforce a slavery contract. On the other hand, it can be argued that the state is denying you the freedom to sell yourself into slavery.
It is interesting to consider the case of non-compete agreements in a similar fashion.
(Please don't be rude or I'll be uninterested in discussing with you further, and don't tell me what I get "points" for: I'm not in a competition with you.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're not addressing my point. Slaves (in the most obvious case) didn't enter into unfair contracts to make themselves slaves. So, you get points for snark, but not for advancing an argument.
(It doesn't matter what slaves did in the past.) Slavery would be a matter of contract law in the present day if it was permitted -- since people would be allowed to sign themselves into slavery in return for whatever they could get out of it. You're not "allowed" to sign yourself into slavery, even if you want to (because the state won't enforce the contract). Non-competes will have the same properties above (if thi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
(It doesn't matter what slaves did in the past.) Slavery would be a matter of contract law in the present day if it was permitted -- since people would be allowed to sign themselves into slavery in return for whatever they could get out of it. You're not "allowed" to sign yourself into slavery, even if you want to (because the state won't enforce the contract). Non-competes will have the same properties above (if thi…
That's an interesting argument tactic. Slavery is a valid analogy to noncompete contract terms if you redefine the concept of slavery to be a contractual obligation between slave owners and slaves. Indeed, then, you are right: Massachusetts would not enforce that contract clause. Good catch!
The OP made an argument of this form:
"I dislike the government asserting that I am not a fully competent adult, capable of making my own decisions about what agreements I enter into and which I do not.
If I'm not competent to read a and agree, or not agree, to it, then why do they think that I'm competent to drive a car, or vote, or sign a lease?"
The reply by toby noted "You can't sell yourself into slavery" by way of pointing out that the argument does not hold when X = selling yourself into slavery.
Thus toby was demonstrating the OP's argument was not valid as it stands for all forms of contract X, and so it needs to be clarified to indicate why it is valid for X = non-compete agreement (for example by reframing the argument from one based on competence to: "I don't believe the state should refuse to enforce contracts merely on economic grounds")
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed, and once non-compete agreements are no longer enforced in Mass., non-compete agreements will no longer be a matter of contract law.
You're not addressing my point. Slaves (in the most obvious case) didn't enter into unfair contracts to make themselves slaves. So, you get points for snark, but not for advancing an argument.
I agree with you that "slavery" was a sloppy argument, but indentured servitude is a better one.
I agree. If you feel your employee is a value to you and potentially a competitor, you ought to compensate them accordingly. Personally, I would never sign a non-compete unless there were not only adequate considerations for compensation, but also equity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Non-competes could be seen (from a company's point of view) as a form of the prisoner's dilemma: everyone is better off if no one requires non-competes, but if everyone else requires them than I need to. Therefore, a law of this sort could potentially improve conditions for all companies in a way that individual companies could not accomplish themselves. That is, the government is not trying to tell you what to do, i…
Really? Finish your thought. Why is everyone better off if nobody requires noncompetes?