[seneca]

Why would it not be legal to enforce a contract after 9 years? If she didn't want it enforced after a duration, she could have negotiated for that, or just not signed it.

I don't see how it's principled to legally swear to not do something, then turn around and do it anyways. She's an adult, she has agency, and she chose to enter that contract.

It's also not like we're talking about a legal whistleblower here. That act DOES (and should) have a lot of legal protections. This is someone writing a book that they personally profit from.

[materielle]

There are all sorts of contracts that are deemed non-enforceable. Our government should pass a law that bans non-disparagement clauses.

One of the most pressing problems of our time is that these large corporations, on balance, have too much power compared to the electorate.

[dboreham]

Needless to say even in the USA, dick-move clauses in contracts are not a magic wand that allows anything to be enforceable. Contracts can be challenged through litigation (e.g. as unconscionable) and there are laws (e.g. California state law prohibits non-compete clauses).

[zeroonetwothree]

How does this show that corporations have too much power? We are literally discussing that this act could easily be stopped by legislation. Doesn’t that imply they have less power than the electorate?

[johnnyanmac]

A corporation having to ability to bribe people who need money to pay their rent and healthcare in order to save their own image is indeed "too much power".

> We are literally discussing that this act could easily be stopped by legislation. Doesn’t that imply they have less power than the electorate?

Not when they have full time people dedicated to lobbying the legislation. That's the issue on why things move so slow or halt when it comes to really voting on such policy.

[SoftTalker]

I basically agree but as a civil instrument, a contract is not a law. The only consequence of violating a contract should be having to pay back whatever damages were caused. Not prohibitions on behavior or other freedoms. Enforced by whom?

Corporations will violate contracts all the time as a cost of business if the cost of the violation is less than the benefit gained.

[prepend]

In the US, a contract is considered law. It’s just only between the parties.

[Supermancho]

Tort law and criminal law are two of the many subtypes.

[SoftTalker]

You will not go to jail for breaking a contract. The only remedies are civil.

[prepend]

Right. But it’s still law. Civil law.

[tclancy]

Because it’s unbalanced. The company benefits for as long as the ex-employee is alive, the ex-employee’s trade, theoretically of a high salary and privilege for keeping shtum winds down fairly quickly.

[golem14]

Non-competes are, as far as I know, not enforceable either at least in some jurisdictions.

[andrewaylett]

There would have been a power imbalance at the point of signing. I can well imagine that the implications of that particular clause weren't apparent at the time.

As a society (more so here in the UK than in the US, I'll grant) we have laws governing what one party may demand of the other. They don't prevent a genuine meeting of the minds, because enforcement of a contract will only be an issue if at least one party doesn't follow through. But they do limit the ability of the company to impose sanctions beyond a point.

One limitation in the UK is that penalty clauses that are "private fines", like this one, must be based on the actual damage caused.

In this case, as in the non-compete case, I would say that if a company wants to continue to influence what someone does, they should continue to pay them.