How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site.
    Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask Ash Your Own Question
Ash
Ash, Solicitor
Category: Law
Satisfied Customers: 10916
Experience:  Solicitor with 5+ years experience
75100385
Type Your Law Question Here...
Ash is online now

I have a Ltd Liab Company. It's essentially a one-man show,

Resolved Question:

I have a Ltd Liab Company. It's essentially a one-man show, and I provide IT consultancy. The company is contracted to an agency A, who in turn are contracted to another agency B, who provide IT services to a client C. C and B are terminating their arrangement shortly, and C will appoint a new supplier (D) in B's place. A has a clause in its contract with me which prevents me working at C for a period of 6 months following any cessation of the contract between my company and A.
I know that C want me to continue working for them, and that they insist that I am contracted solely to the new supplier (D), ie not thru A.
Have A any legal grounds to insist that I cannot work at C after the expiry of my contract with them? Can they prevent me from earning a living?
Submitted: 1 year ago.
Category: Law
Expert:  Ash replied 1 year ago.
Hello my name is ***** ***** I will help you.But your contract isnt being terminated with A is it?Alex
Customer: replied 1 year ago.
The contract with A is expiring, but (as I said) there is a clause in this contract which prevents me from working at C for a period of 6 months following the expiry of the contract. I want to know how enforceable this clause is, as essentially it will prevent me from working at C, who want me to work there
Expert:  Ash replied 1 year ago.
Were you made aware of the clause before you signed the contract?Alex
Customer: replied 1 year ago.
Yes, it was in the terms
Expert:  Ash replied 1 year ago.
Thanks. You could potentially argue that the terms are unfair, but you would only need to do this if A complained. Then if it went to Court it would be down to a Judge to decide whether the clause was fair and reasonable.The more onerous the clause the more justification it would be on A to show that it was needed. If indeed it meant you were simply setting up with the competition a Judge may consider it to be fair, but on the other hand if it prevents you earning a living then the Court is more likely to rule that it is unfair.There is no hard or fast rule for this but to apply the common sense meaning to the term unfair.But the ball would be in their Court, you wouldnt need to do anything until they took action.But as you were aware of the clause your only option is with the issue of fairnessCan I clarify anything for you about this today please?Alex
Customer: replied 1 year ago.
No, that's fine, "A" want me to sign an extension until end August, but on the same terms. "C" want me to continue working at their site, but only if I am contracted solely through "D". If (at end August), "A" tried to legally enforce the no-return clause, I would be unable to work at "C", unless a court ruled otherwise
Expert:  Ash replied 1 year ago.
Yes indeed. Therefore it seems to me you shouldnt sign it.Does that clarify?Alex
Ash and other Law Specialists are ready to help you