“We are making our non-compete clause appropriate by limiting it to two years beyond the duration of employment and limiting it to a 25-mile radius of each of our offices,” said McCabe. “In order not to restrict livelihoods, these are only customers whose returns have been generated directly or indirectly by this employee. In other words, they can go out and attract all the new customers they want, including those that belong to us, as long as their returns were not prepared by them when they were working for us. “Let the lawyer prepare the deal and pull as closely as possible. Make sure you understand the provisions of the treaty and that all your concerns are covered. Don`t be afraid to ask questions. GENERAL PROVISIONS ON INDEMNIFICATION The types of compensation that involve a non-compete clause can vary considerably. Ultimately, most courts will award a sufficient amount to return the company to the position it would have held if the infringement had not occurred, and most of them will award lump sum damages if they are appropriate and are not considered a penalty. What is considered sufficient consideration for the worker in exchange for signing a non-competition clause? Many competition bans use the notion of “sufficient consideration” to express the benefit (compensation) granted by the employer to the worker in exchange for a promise not to compete. As with most contracts, sufficient consideration is a necessary condition for a valid agreement. Many CPA companies allow a former employee to take on a client, but include a refund provision in the non-compete agreement.
This provision normally requires the former employee of the company to reimburse a percentage of the fees collected by the customer for a certain number of years after the termination of the employment relationship. However, implementation is laborious. Companies that provide for the continuation of non-competition as a potentially costly nuisance may include in their non-compete agreement a provision allowing the former employee to take a customer on cash on delivery. This normally requires the former employee to pay the company a percentage of the client`s fees it meets for several years after the end of the employment relationship. Many courts are in favour of these agreements. In Packer, Thomas & Co. v. Eyster, 126 Ohio App3d. 109, 709 NE2d 922 (1998), the judge stated that a reimbursement provision was not prejudicial to the public, since the only parties involved were the former employee and the CPA company.
Clients can transfer their accounts to any audit firm they have chosen. When the CPA left the newly created company and created its own practice, that company filed a complaint to enforce the non-compete agreement and other restrictions. . . .