non compete agreement question

Post Deleted

I wouldn't worry about it.  Non-compete clauses cost a lot of money to attack. Usually they have a statute of limitations as well.  Just keep on bringing home the money and don't look back.

 

1. I wouldn't sweat it. It probably means that your partner doesn't give a crap. If you think he might:
- consider the duration of the contract itself (it's probably only good for 5-10 years).
- there are anticompetition clauses in such contracts which bar working for competitors during the life of the contract. (Ex: While working for Pepsi, you cannot work for Coke.) If the contract is terminated, these tend to die with the contract. What you are doing now would likely breach this term. Your partner could interpret this as breach and sue you for damages, which might be hard to prove. To avoid this scenario, keep a low profile (regarding your other gigs) and don't anger your partner.
- then there are noncompete clauses that extend beyond the life of the contract. Common law typically limits these by geography and for a few years. Again, if your partner gets angry and sues you for breach, he would try and enforce this, which would limit your ability to work those other gigs for a few years.

Keep in mind it would be a huge, costly pain for your partner to sue you. It would also cost you and be a pain. Best advice is to keep a low profile with these other jobs, don't rub them in your partners face, and continue to do a good job on your partners business (give it first priority when problems arise). Do that, and you'll have nothing to worry about.

When your contract is up, consider politely declining to resign a new deal if the other gigs are more profitable (and don't mention your moonlighting).

You signed a 5 year non-compete, which I assume kicks in upon your terminating your working agreement with your partner. Thus, if you went out on your own today, the non-compete is valid for 5 years from today.

I'm in Massachusetts. I agree with Hugh.

You're only as good as your word, and smart business people respect that.

Live up to your word.

Non-competes are useless in Illinois. I've signed a few in my career, all finance jobs to another finance job. Never had a problem. Checked with my lawyer first and he said anytime I tell a judge my client wants to earn a living and pay taxes but his ex employer is trying to sue, the judge tosses it out everytime. With unemployment around 11% here can you imagine a judge enforcing a non-compete?

I have a pal who told me years ago that "All noncompetes are basically unenforceable," and I agree, to a point.  I think they are largely useless when it comes to rank and file employees.  The higher up the food chain you go, the more likely they are to be enforced.  First look at the thing and see if there's a governing law provision.  There are ways around those too, but it's only worth worrying about if there's an actual difference between NY and MA law on the subject.  I have a three-volume treatise on that subject, but it's a little dated at this point.  Recall also that non-competes only protect (generally speaking) "legitimate business interests," and the naked restraint of trade is generally disfavored virtually everywhere.  If all you have done is acquired skills, you're in better shape.  It's when you get into acquiring trade contacts and such where it gets murkier. 

I would agree that is is something to worry about.  Worst case, that $160,000 "you" made might really be $160,000 the two of you made (google "constructive trust"), and that would suck.  I

Given what you said, I don't think a court would enforce a five-year restriction.  One or two is far more likely.  In some states, if the agreement is facially overbroad from the outset, the court will just toss it (and I think five years, on its face, might well be overbroad).  Other states, "red pencil" the agreement, enforcing it, be basically rewriting in more reasonable terms.  If you can, I'd initiate a casual conversation with the NY dude, indicate that you are thinking about trying to go out on your own at some point, and seeing if you can't come to some reasonable agreement as to which certain accounts or territories would continue to be governed by the old agreement and which would be yours - perhaps you could offer him 10% of whatever you get going forward for say five years as an incentive for him to help you grow. 

Posters like HughJordan - who totally disagrees with me - aren't necessarily wrong, but I think what's important here is that the OP is posting about individual liquor events. The event business as I know it does not have a lot of direct competition. And if OP is only doing three liquor events with his partner a year in the greater Boston area, the attorney isn't necessarily trying to dominate the Boston market. That tells me that this is a rather low-end deal for the NYC attorney who is just looking for some easy side cash.