• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

FM 100 fires morning show personality...

> and finding that whether I was given some compensation for signing the NC was a pretty important point.

Well, now we are down to good 'ole basic contract law. And, without spending too much time and ink discussing what one learns in the first few weeks of First Year Contracts, suffice it to say that, yes, ALL contracts require some form of consideration.

Does that mean your employer must pay a sum for the NC to be vaild? No. Consideration can take many forms: it can be monetary, the promise of employment, or even the promise of continuing employment. Heck, the exchange of promises between two parties could be enough.

While I can't say it would never happen, I would not think that consideration is going to be a central issue in a non-compete case.

DE
 
That reminds me of when I went to work for a certain company. In the paperwork I was handed to sign, was a sheet which said they had the right to terminate me at any time for no reason. Then came the non-compete, in which I would give up the right to do radio for six months (say, if i was terminated for no reason) "in consideration for continued employment". OK...
 
You know, Rob. That is a remarkably astute observation -- one that has bothered me in the past.

Assuming that the language of the contract requires not one second of employment, and promise of continued employment is the recited consideration, arguably, we have an illusory contract. Sloppy drafting, if you ask me.

It would be an interesting argument to listen to on motion day. 'Never seen a case on it.

DE
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom