Actuarial Outpost
Go Back   Actuarial Outpost > Actuarial Discussion Forum > Careers - Employment
FlashChat Actuarial Discussion Preliminary Exams CAS/SOA Exams Cyberchat Around the World Suggestions

Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 07-11-2018, 01:37 PM
JoJo JoJo is offline
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,860
Default A non-compete ruling

For an accountant, but WOW what a judgement.
Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2018, 01:50 PM
SlowMotionWalter's Avatar
SlowMotionWalter SlowMotionWalter is offline
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 13,204

i'm fine with the non-compete holding up in this instance. it didn't appear to be a contract of adhesion and looks like it was only excluding him rendering services to former clients. not exactly a "can't do any lawyering at all for 10 years" sort of thing.

Cleary's decision noted that Lapidus was an owner of the accounting firm, sophisticated and an architect of the agreement he violated.
Originally Posted by bigb View Post
You should learn to communicate in a serious manner before you expect a serious answer.
Originally Posted by Kangaz wit Attitude View Post
Force of habit, 2pac's been typing "88" a LOT since Trump got elected.
Originally Posted by JMO View Post
You ought to see the bush. It's impressive.
Originally Posted by Pikachu
10:53 pm: some ppl dont take advices well
Originally Posted by mayo fan
9:45 pm: ao fan would be hot covered in mayo!
Originally Posted by Snikelfritz
if you'd like I can come visit and dress up like a girl and get in some fights
Originally Posted by Kaner3339 View Post
i think everyone needs to do this type of thing to get a dose of reality and straighten people up. it's kinda like going to the mountains and becoming a monk except it's with hundreds of potatoes and a lot of stoners with tattoos in a kitchen
Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2018, 06:57 PM
Climbing Bum's Avatar
Climbing Bum Climbing Bum is offline
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Philadelphia
College: Utah State University
Favorite beer: Yards IPA
Posts: 344

I'm against anti compete agreements. But IMO this case seemed fair.

It's one thing to say you can't work for someone because we paid you to work for us and we do business for them or compete against them. A totally different thing to say we'll pay you to not steal our competitors since you worked for us and we know you could. I know there's room to argue those payments are for work already performed, but when you add on that he designed the thing it's hard to argue against.

IMO in this case timing is everything. That said, still scary. The precedent does bother me.

Thanks for sharing.
Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2018, 06:59 PM
Colonel Smoothie's Avatar
Colonel Smoothie Colonel Smoothie is online now
Join Date: Sep 2010
College: Jamba Juice University
Favorite beer: AO Amber Ale
Posts: 48,750

Recommended Readings for the EL Actuary || Recommended Readings for the EB Actuary

Originally Posted by Wigmeister General View Post
Don't you even think about sending me your resume. I'll turn it into an origami boulder and return it to you.
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:51 AM.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
*PLEASE NOTE: Posts are not checked for accuracy, and do not
represent the views of the Actuarial Outpost or its sponsors.
Page generated in 0.13306 seconds with 9 queries