|
Let's say you have an agreement with a company which includes specific
reference to the commissions you earn at a specified rate for the sale
of services.
That agreement includes a provision that you will not do business
directly with the company's clients, whether you are employed with
that company or not, unless you do a "buyout" to secure the right to
do business directly with a particular company client.
After a period of satisfactory employment, you negotiate an increase
in the commission rate consistent with company policy, which means
there are no restrictions on that commission rate.
Now the company raises the price of the service but wants to lower the
commission rate because you would be making a lot more money than
before. The company claims that the commission rate you earned prior
to the price increase was specifically for the earlier price level and
not the new higher price.
However, there is no documentation to back up that claim. The
documentation for your claim that you are to be paid the commission
without restriction is based on the original written agreement with
the company.
You point out to the company that there were no such restrictions in
the original agreement and that you were being paid a commission rate
consistent with company policy.
You submit your month's sales and apply the current commission rate
for your share of the sales. But when you receive your commission
check it is for a lesser amount because the company did not honor its
agreement for the current commission rate.
Here's my question: Is the agreement you have with that company now
null and void because it broke its side of the agreement? Furthermore,
if you terminate your employment with the company, can you sell
directly to its clients without paying the "buyout" amount?
It would seem that the moment the company broke the contract it had
with you that it broke the contract you had with it - and now there is
no valid agreement with the company to enforce legally.
--
Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/
Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of
arriving safely in one pretty and well-preserved piece.
One should rather skid in broadside, thoroughly used up,
totally worn out, loudly proclaiming "WOW! WHAT A RIDE!"
|
| |
| |
On Mon, 17 May 2004 19:19:06 GMT, nospam@isp.com wrote:
* In some states, non-competion contracts for most kinds
of post-employment purposes (at least for non-proprietary
mid- or lower-level employees including in sales functions)
are statutorily unenforceable (e.g., in Calif.) and, in most
other states, such contracts are at least comparatively
(in some places: VERY) narrowly/strictly construed/
applied in terms of whether not "uneasonable" in subject
-matter, duration, and geographical scope.
I take that as a "yes".
--
Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/
Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of
arriving safely in one pretty and well-preserved piece.
One should rather skid in broadside, thoroughly used up,
totally worn out, loudly proclaiming "WOW! WHAT A RIDE!"
|
| |
| |
On Mon, 17 May 2004 19:19:06 GMT, nospam@isp.com wrote:
* In some states, non-competion contracts for most kinds
of post-employment purposes (at least for non-proprietary
mid- or lower-level employees including in sales functions)
are statutorily unenforceable (e.g., in Calif.) and, in most
other states, such contracts are at least comparatively
(in some places: VERY) narrowly/strictly construed/
applied in terms of whether not "uneasonable" in subject
-matter, duration, and geographical scope.
I take that to be a "yes".
--
Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/
Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of
arriving safely in one pretty and well-preserved piece.
One should rather skid in broadside, thoroughly used up,
totally worn out, loudly proclaiming "WOW! WHAT A RIDE!"
|
| |
| |
|
