Contract Law is it bullet proof?

pirelli

Recently in United states of America an ex-employee of a Tax filing company won his case in a dispute over his contract that forbid him working for another competitor for 2 years. These clauses are quite common and the court ruled in his favour and found such a clause unlawful.

I have found a similar issue in a contract. Say that waive your right to information in the said contract, then you discover that such a waiver can not be included in a contract. The law percludes such a waiver.

Does that void the entire contract or void just that sentence.
Would it void the entire clause that included that sentence or just the words in that sentence.

Say there are other controversial waviers in that clause would that strengthen your case to sue if it was revealed there was a concealed tort that the contract would otherwise have covered the company for.

If it was delibertly concealed would you still be able to sue under these circumstances.?

I would think that a soilictor that draws up a fundamentally flawed contract should be answerable to the courts if there is some type of deceit. I know that's another issue but basically it appears contracts have alot of power and there must be a way around them in such circumstances.

FreudianSlippers

I don't really have time ATM to write a full reply to this, but contract law is not "bulletproof"

The example you cite is actually a very interesting one and non-competition clauses in contracts (which are totally valid) can be rendered invalid if the court is of the opinion that the geographic area is unreasonable.

Say a job that can only be done in Dublin restricts former employees for working for other companies in Dublin - that would be unreasonable. But say it prevents you from working in Dublin 6w, that may be reasonable (may not be too... but it depends on the circumstances)

Reloc8

The question can be answered in the general sense pretty accurately.

Where legislation prohibits certain clauses in contracts it will generally provide that any clause to that effect is void and of no effect, but that the contract will still be effective.

In general where a clause is inoperable owing to operation of law or other reason the courts will seek to give effect to the rest of the contract if possible.

Delancey

If Contract Law was ' Bulletproof ' I think there would probably be a lot fewer lawyers !

nuac

Law is not an exact science. Circumstances change, judges differ. Law is constantly evolving. Any lawyer who describes a draft of anything as "bullet-proof" should be approached with caution.

Reloc8

delancey42 wrote: »

If Contract Law was ' Bulletproof ' I think there would probably be a lot fewer lawyers !

If Lawyers were bulletproof there'd be a lot more of Contract Law.

pirelli

What about a tort deciet, Where the contract is meant to serve a particular purpose i.e employment settlement but their are uneccessarily references to other acts laws which it later served the purpose of protecting the company when a tort deceit is discovered.

A tort deceit is a delibrate act of fraud. Which is concealed. It kind of makes contract law pointless. It would be like what CDo did for Anglo Bank and ireland.

Can you really carry on that deceit into a contract for an employment settlement. If a Judge can publicly demand we rip the bricks from the walls of Banks could they also apply that to contracts that are strecthed to protect against a tort deceit.

If not then Judges shouldn't be surprised when our economy suffers the same fate as the individual.

32minutes

pirelli wrote: »

Recently in United states of America an ex-employee of a Tax filing company won his case in a dispute over his contract that forbid him working for another competitor for 2 years. These clauses are quite common and the court ruled in his favour and found such a clause unlawful.

I have found a similar issue in a contract. Say that waive your right to information in the said contract, then you discover that such a waiver can not be included in a contract. The law percludes such a waiver.

Does that void the entire contract or void just that sentence.
Would it void the entire clause that included that sentence or just the words in that sentence.

Say there are other controversial waviers in that clause would that strengthen your case to sue if it was revealed there was a concealed tort that the contract would otherwise have covered the company for.

If it was delibertly concealed would you still be able to sue under these circumstances.?

I would think that a soilictor that draws up a fundamentally flawed contract should be answerable to the courts if there is some type of deceit. I know that's another issue but basically it appears contracts have alot of power and there must be a way around them in such circumstances.

some jurisdictions also have specific jurisprudence that differentiates them, for instance in California it's GENERALLY accepted that non compete clauses are invalid- the case of the the HP exec Mark Hurd being able to work for Oracle- lots of details on google etc...

pirelli

pirelli wrote: »

What about a tort deciet, Where the contract is meant to serve a particular purpose i.e employment settlement but their are uneccessarily references to other acts laws which it later served the purpose of protecting the company when a tort deceit is discovered.

A tort deceit is a delibrate act of fraud. Which is concealed. It kind of makes contract law pointless. It would be like what CDo did for Anglo Bank and ireland.

Can you really carry on that deceit into a contract for an employment settlement. If a Judge can publicly demand we rip the bricks from the walls of Banks could they also apply that to contracts that are strecthed to protect against a tort deceit.

If not then Judges shouldn't be surprised when our economy suffers the same fate as the individual.

You cannot contract for an illegality. For example a contract to kill someone is unenforceable as it is for an illegal purpose.

If the contract was substantially for the purpose of, or had the effect of, perpetrating a fraud then it would not be a valid contract.

johnnyskeleton

delancey42 wrote: »

If Contract Law was ' Bulletproof ' I think there would probably be a lot fewer lawyers !

Nah, they'd just invent bigger bullets.

Victor

pirelli wrote: »

Recently in United states of America an ex-employee of a Tax filing company won his case in a dispute over his contract that forbid him working for another competitor for 2 years. These clauses are quite common and the court ruled in his favour and found such a clause unlawful.

A worker is entitled to work / have an income - I wonder if hte courts would take an unenumerated right (subject to law) view of it.

If such a restriction is put in place it has to be reasonable (after all the employee can't trade on the employer's business either) or the worker compensated - "gardening leave".

that waive your right to information in the said contract

What do you mean by this? The employee is denied a copy of the contract?

Does that void the entire contract or void just that sentence.
Would it void the entire clause that included that sentence or just the words in that sentence.

evercloserunion

delancey42 wrote: »

If Contract Law was ' Bulletproof ' I think there would probably be a lot fewer lawyers !

What a horrible thought :eek:

pirelli

Victor wrote: »

A worker is entitled to work / have an income - I wonder if hte courts would take an unenumerated right (subject to law) view of it.

If such a restriction is put in place it has to be reasonable (after all the employee can't trade on the employer's business either) or the worker compensated - "gardening leave".

What do you mean by this? The employee is denied a copy of the contract?

No the employee has a copy of the contract.


In the contract.The employee has apparantly waived his right to accessing information from the company. However they would be precluded from putting this in the contract under the law.

I had wondered if this would be a breach of their own contract meaning it would have to be amended and whether it leaves room for some re -negotiation or bascially alows one to side step other restrictions in the clause and sue them if that restriction has been nullified. If there were other factors now seeping in that would show a tort deceit if this could be all thrown to gether as a get out clause for the employee to take action.