Re: Response from Bruce Schwoegler

[Dave Faneuf <tklaundry@juno.com>]

On Wed, 17 Apr 2002 17:58:26 EDT Dibmaine@aol.com writes:
> In a message dated 4/17/02 1:02:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
> tklaundry@juno.com writes:
> 
> << Would that be prior to the contract expiring or upon it's 
> expiration? >>
> 
> I read the law that if an employee leaves before the contract 
> expires, the 
> non-compete stays in effect until the contract runs out.  When the 
> contract 
> ends, the non-compete ends.
> 
> In an earlier e-mail, you made the point about walking about while a 
> contract 
> is in effect is breach of contract.  That's correct but a court is 
> unlikely 
> to force an employee to go back to work and the employer probably 
> doesn't 
> want the employee to come back.  It will be tough in most situations 
> for an 
> employer to show monetary damages due to the breach by the employee. 
>  
> Enforcing a non-compete, in that limited situation, is the best way 
> to do 
> justice in such a situation.
> 
> -- Dan Billings, Bowdoinham, Maine

That makes sense.  (so how can it be legal LOL)

Perhaps the confusion on my part is Bruce's use of the term BOLT, I would
use it as meaning that an employee left the station after his/her
contract expires, perhaps Bruce meant BOLT as being leaving a station
BEFORE the contract runs out for employment elsewhere?   Most employees
in a situation like this would most likely just wait out the contract
(why jepordize any severance if you walk?)  

As far as an earlier response regarding "reasonable attorney fees" I can
only guess that they would apply to the losing side of any litigation?  
df