Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by deaddodo 775 days ago
It's not about the former point, in contract law, but the latter. They could have rendered services, but if they're far out scaled to what the other party offered they would be considered inequitable and breachable.

This is the primary basis that California used to disqualify non-executive non-competes (before they were outright legislated out).
1 comments
lupire 775 days ago
California's basis was "reatraint of trade". Equitability was not a factor, regardless of how much was paid for the noncompete.

The legal basis for voiding contracts is "unconscionability".

link
deaddodo 774 days ago
> Equitability was not a factor, regardless of how much was paid for the noncompete.

There was no equitable value, which directly led into economic restraint and servitude arguments.

> The legal basis for voiding contracts is "unconscionability".

Not sure what you're referring to here, but you should review "balance of contract" and "fair and equitable terms" in US and California contract law.

link