6

I signed an employment agreement 6 years into a 7 year term. On the 7th year, they decided to not renew our agreement. When reviewing my agreement I noticed the corporate name was incorrect and wasn't the complete name. Does this mistake make the agreement invalid? They are trying to hold me to the non compete in the agreement. I was also given 10% shares of the company for starting the business for them. We did a redemption agreement for a specific amount and they never paid me. Are employment agreements for employees valid for share holders and officers of the company or should there have been a different one.

Thanks

  • 5
    "We did a redemption agreement for a specific amount and they never paid me": in that case, you may be a creditor rather than a shareholder. – phoog Jun 24 at 16:45
  • 3
    You should just approach this from the standpoint of [in]validity of the non-compete. That depends on your jurisdiction, but generally, in many jurisdictions, they can't keep you from working in your area of expertise when they're the ones who chose to end the engagement. – R.. Jun 25 at 1:05
  • 1
  • Close but not a duplicate – A. K. Jun 26 at 13:37
16

Does this mistake make the agreement invalid?

No. Having worked at that company for six years already, it will be extremely easy for the company to prove that you clearly knew with which entity you were entering the contract. That is what matters in contract law. Thus, the discrepancy of name in te contract is inconsequential. This is similar to what I explained in this other answer.

Are employment agreements for employees valid for share holders and officers of the company or should there have been a different one.

In the U.S., there is no prohibition to that effect. What matters is that the parties' rights and obligations are stated and accepted with reasonable clarity.

  • 7
    Worth noting that while a misidentification of a party when the intent of the parties is clear is unlikely to be a serious problem, that there are many circumstances in which a non-compete is nonetheless unenforceable, although this varies a lot from one jurisdiction to another. – ohwilleke Jun 24 at 20:06
  • 1
    The difference in name could be significant if both entities exist and are closely related, e.g. if one is a parent company of the other. This can affect your rights if the parent company sells off the child company. In that situation it would be quite possible to turn up for work every day for six years without knowing who your legal employer is. – Michael Kay Jun 25 at 8:25
  • 1
    @MichaelKay "it would be quite possible to turn up for work every day for six years without knowing who your legal employer is". Anything is "quite possible" if we are determined to add intricate assumptions beyond what an OP describes. Here, the OP made no mention whatsoever about parent company selling off child companies. Even if he did, courts in various jurisdictions consider the economic reality rather than the labels in a contract, especially when the significance of those labels is superseded by evidence of the parties' meeting of the minds. – Iñaki Viggers Jun 25 at 10:56
  • 1
    I'm just pointing out that there isn't enough information in the OPs question for us to be sure that your answer is correct; there are circumstances in which it might be wrong. – Michael Kay Jun 25 at 13:31
  • If you try to sue a company and fail to serve them correctly because it's very hard to figure out which legal entity to serve, my understanding is that courts tend not to be forgiving. Example: businesssearch.sos.ca.gov/CBS/… – Matthew Elvey Oct 7 at 3:37

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.