zlacker

If it's non-enforceable, but you signed it, wouldn't that make the contract void?

I suppose there's probably a bunch of legalese to prevent that though...

>>squigz+(OP)
The legalese to handle that is one of the standard boilerplate clauses: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severability

>>squigz+(OP)
Probably not enforceable != enforceable. Are you worth suing or does everyone sign? Are your state laws and jurisprudence going to back you up?

If you are ever going to sign an employee agreement that binds you, consult with an employment attorney first. I did this with a past noncompete and it was the best few hundred I ever spent: my attorney talked with me for an hour about the particulars of my noncompete, pointed out areas to negotiate, and sent back redlines to make the contract more equitable.

>>squigz+(OP)
There is usually a severability clause that basically says if a clause is illegal it voids that clause not the whole contract… this is pretty standard practice.

>>owenma+k6
The single best professional decision I ever made was to get a business degree. The degree itself wasn’t worth a damn, but the network was invaluable. I have very close friends who are the exact kind of attorney who you would expect to have an undergraduate business degree. They’re greedy, combative people who absolutely relish these sorts of opportunities. And as a bonus, they are MY greedy, combative people who relish these sorts of opportunities.

They’re great partners when confronted with this kind of contract. And fundamentally, if my adversary/future employer retains counsel, I should too. Why be at a disadvantage when it’s so easy to pay money and be at even?

There are some areas my ethics don’t mesh with, but at the end of the day this is my work and I do it for pay. And when I look at results, lawyers are the best investment I have ever made.

>>indymi+3p
I think I've seen that in every contract I've ever signed.

>>squigz+(OP)
At most it would just make that part of the contract void. Almost all contracts with stuff like this would have a “severability” clause which states like if one part of the contract is invalid, the rest is still valid.

But even without that, judges have huge amounts of leeway to “create” an ex post facto contract and say “heres the version if that contract you would have agreed to, this is now the contract you signed”. A sort of “fixed” version of the contract.

>>reaper+lD
> At most it would just make that part of the contract void. Almost all contracts with stuff like this would have a “severability” clause which states like if one part of the contract is invalid, the rest is still valid.

Severability clauses themselves are not necessarily valid; whether provisions can be severed and how without voiding the contract is itself a legal question that depends on the specific terms and circumstances.