Return to Answer

As most of the other answers point out, a 4 year non-compete clause is insane.

Those kind of non-compete clauses also are usually applied to high ranking employees, and translate into a fairly good/golden compensation package e.g. if they want you potentially out of the market during 4 years, the contract must state you will be paid by them for that period of time.

If those condition are not met, I would be adamant about not signing the contract at all. (and even then - in this market we are selling our know how. It is quite a career killing move signing such clausules)

Also keep in mind you are negotiating a contract/deal. You are not obliged to accept all the clauses they want as they are today. It is a part of negotiation that both sides can define what they want.

Furthermore, you can fairly ask them what means that clause, and they can fairly tell what they want. What it counts at the end of the day is what is written, and then again, the clause is fairly too broad. e.g. the course of action is not asking what that means, is demanding to define well the scope in written form, far less time, and for it to be compensated.

As a side note, that contract is a good example as people should never fire themselves before having a signed contract, for keeping a strong bargaining power on their side.

I would also possibly consider asking an attorney specialised in work law to revise the final contract before signing it. Having such a clause can be a clue there can be other traps on the contract. If they can have their army of lawyers writing a contract, so can you and should consult one.

PS in the past I also had a pretty broad non-compete clausule in my contract, and I demanded an addenda to the contract defining pretty well what it was all about (and I got it).

As most of the other answers point out, a 4 year non-compete clause is insane.

Those kind of non-compete clauses also are usually applied to high ranking employees, and translate into a fairly good/golden compensation package e.g. if they want you potentially out of the market during 4 years, the contract must state you will be paid by them for that period of time.

If those condition are not met, I would be adamant about not signing the contract at all. (and even then - in this market we are selling our know how. It is quite a career killing move signing such clausules)

Also keep in mind you are negotiating a contract/deal. You are not obliged to accept all the clauses they want as they are today. It is a part of negotiation that both sides can define what they want.

Furthermore, you can fairly ask them what means that clause, and they can fairly tell what they want. What it counts at the end of the day is what is written, and then again, the clause is fairly too broad. e.g. the course of action is not asking what that means, is demanding to define well the scope in written form, far less time, and for it to be compensated.

As a side note, that contract is a good example as people should never fire themselves before having a signed contract, for keeping a strong bargaining power on their side.

I would also possibly consider asking an attorney specialised in work law to revise the final contract before signing it. Having such a clause can be a clue there can be other traps on the contract. If they can have their army of lawyers writing a contract, so can you and should consult one.

I take from the alias you are foreign. Depending on where you are signing the contract, other legislation might also apply. Eg I was an expat several years, and I had a contract for my home country which bound me more severely with penalty clauses, and a pretty regular contract for the host country. As said before, ask a lawyer if still interested in their offer.

PS in the past I also had a pretty broad non-compete clausule in my contract, and I demanded an addenda to the contract defining pretty well what it was all about (and I got it).

As most of the other answers point out, a 4 year non-compete clause is insane.

Those kind of non-compete clauses also are usually applied to high ranking employees, and translate into a fairly good/golden compensation package e.g. if they want you potentially out of the market during 4 years, the contract must state you will be paid by them for that period of time.

If those condition are not met, I would be adamant I would not sign the contract at all. (and even then - in this market we are selling our know how. It is quite a career killing move signing such clausules)

Also keep in mind you are negotiating a contract/deal. You are not obliged to accept all the clauses they want as they are today. It is a part of negotiation that both sides can define what they want.

Furthermore, you can fairly ask them what means that clause, and they can fairly tell what they want. What it counts at the end of the day is what is written, and then again, the clause is fairly too broad. e.g. the course of action is not asking what that means, is demanding to define well the scope in written form, far less time, and for it to be compensated.

As a side note, that contract is a good example as people should never fire themselves before having a signed contract, for keeping a strong bargaining power on their side.

I would also possibly consider asking an attorney specialised in work law to revise the final contract before signing it. Having such a clause can be a clue there can be other traps on the contract. If they can have their army of lawyers writing a contract, so can you and should consult one.

PS in the past I also had a pretty broad non-compete clausule in my contract, and I demanded an addenda to the contract defining pretty well what it was all about (and I got it).

As most of the other answers point out, a 4 year non-compete clause is insane.

Those kind of non-compete clauses also are usually applied to high ranking employees, and translate into a fairly good/golden compensation package e.g. if they want you potentially out of the market during 4 years, the contract must state you will be paid by them for that period of time.

If those condition are not met, I would be adamant about not signing the contract at all. (and even then - in this market we are selling our know how. It is quite a career killing move signing such clausules)

Also keep in mind you are negotiating a contract/deal. You are not obliged to accept all the clauses they want as they are today. It is a part of negotiation that both sides can define what they want.

Furthermore, you can fairly ask them what means that clause, and they can fairly tell what they want. What it counts at the end of the day is what is written, and then again, the clause is fairly too broad. e.g. the course of action is not asking what that means, is demanding to define well the scope in written form, far less time, and for it to be compensated.

As a side note, that contract is a good example as people should never fire themselves before having a signed contract, for keeping a strong bargaining power on their side.

I would also possibly consider asking an attorney specialised in work law to revise the final contract before signing it. Having such a clause can be a clue there can be other traps on the contract. If they can have their army of lawyers writing a contract, so can you and should consult one.

PS in the past I also had a pretty broad non-compete clausule in my contract, and I demanded an addenda to the contract defining pretty well what it was all about (and I got it).

As most of the other answers point out, a 4 year non-compete clause is insane.

Those kind of non-compete clauses also are usually applied to high ranking employees, and translate into a fairly good/golden compensation package e.g. if they want you potentially out of the market during 4 years, the contract must state you will be paid by them for that period of time.

If those condition are not met, I would be adamant I would not sign the contract at all. (and even then)

Also keep in mind you are negotiating a contract/deal. You are not obliged to accept all the clauses they want as they are today. It is a part of negotiation that both sides can define what they want.

Furthermore, you can fairly ask them what means that clause, and they can fairly tell what they want. What it counts at the end of the day is what is written, and then again, the clause is fairly too broad. e.g. the course of action is not asking what that means, is demanding to define well the scope in written form, far less time, and for it to be compensated.

As a side note, that contract is a good example as people should never fire themselves before having a contract sign, for keeping a strong bargaining power on their side.

I would also possibly consider asking an attorney specialised in work law to revise the final contract before signing it. Having such a clause can be a clue there can be other traps on the contract.

As most of the other answers point out, a 4 year non-compete clause is insane.

Those kind of non-compete clauses also are usually applied to high ranking employees, and translate into a fairly good/golden compensation package e.g. if they want you potentially out of the market during 4 years, the contract must state you will be paid by them for that period of time.

If those condition are not met, I would be adamant I would not sign the contract at all. (and even then - in this market we are selling our know how. It is quite a career killing move signing such clausules)

Also keep in mind you are negotiating a contract/deal. You are not obliged to accept all the clauses they want as they are today. It is a part of negotiation that both sides can define what they want.

Furthermore, you can fairly ask them what means that clause, and they can fairly tell what they want. What it counts at the end of the day is what is written, and then again, the clause is fairly too broad. e.g. the course of action is not asking what that means, is demanding to define well the scope in written form, far less time, and for it to be compensated.

As a side note, that contract is a good example as people should never fire themselves before having a signed contract, for keeping a strong bargaining power on their side.

I would also possibly consider asking an attorney specialised in work law to revise the final contract before signing it. Having such a clause can be a clue there can be other traps on the contract. If they can have their army of lawyers writing a contract, so can you and should consult one.

PS in the past I also had a pretty broad non-compete clausule in my contract, and I demanded an addenda to the contract defining pretty well what it was all about (and I got it).