help please (law)

[was786]

Marion is a qualified accountant working for the firm of Hood, Robin and Co. Her contract of employment says: 'For five years after leaving the employment of Hood, Robin and Co, the employee may not

1. Work for any of the clients of Hood, Robin and Co or

2. Work as an accountant within 100 miles of Nottingham.

Marion wishes to move to another Nottingham firm of accountants, taking some of her clients with her. Explain to her the relevant legal rules concerning restraint of trade, discuss relevant cases, and apply the rules to Marion's situation.

[DungeonJayne]

We're not doing your law essays for you, was786.

Restraint of trade clauses have to be reasonable both in terms of time, and distance.

Work it out for yourself, but the punchline will be that 5 years may be reasonable, but borderline. 100 miles is probably not, unless the firm can show that it has a real client base over that sort of area.

If the criteria are unreasonable, the whole clause becomes void under the "blue pencil rule"

[Twenty20]

5 years is way too long, would be unenforceable and would be considered restraint of trade. 6 months is probably the limit and even that could be challenged. If youre considering taking clients with you then this would give the current employer more impetus to sue you for breach of contract within the first few months.

[fadeout73]

Was786, go read your course books. The way you are going you will be saying "I WAS studying Law" not "I AM studying Law" !!!!

[ansme]

I love the fact everyones giving the wrong answers!

Hope you fail was786 you dont deserve a qualification let alone a qualification in Law considering you rely on an internet forum to answer your essays!

Get your butt in the library and get studying child!

[Hymie]

I have no legal qualifications � but I don�t see any difference between an accountant and someone working on a supermarket checkout.
Any employer could insert a clause into all their workers� contracts, that they could not work in a similar capacity within X miles of their place of employment.

Does anyone really think a court would enforce any such restrictive contract, regardless of the value of X? And if a court would � why does every employer not insert such a term in their contracts � they would thereby have a captive workforce, who they could pay and treat as they please (although they could leave, they could not get another job as an accountant or working on a checkout).

[Oneeyedvic]

Hymie - is it the job of a checkout person to go out and get Tesco's business?

Would you ever stop using Tesco's because a cashier left?

Would that cashier contact you and say: "Hey, come and use Asda, we are so much better"?

Obviously the answer is no.

Now replace Tescos with an accountancy practice, and the answer turns to Yes.

That is why these contractual terms are written

[cove]

I would tell her to read the laws and by-laws of her contract and don't bother me with silly questions.