<story><title>Millions of workers believe they are bound by non-binding contracts</title><url>http://thespeakernewsjournal.com/business/millions-of-workers-are-bound-by-non-binding-contracts/</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>notacoward</author><text>There are other ways in which the papers you sign might not be as binding as you think. Story time.&lt;p&gt;A while back, the startup I worked at was acquired by a large company known for its aggressive legal department. Everyone had to sign an agreement, including both intellectual property and non-compete clauses, or be fired. One guy actually did refuse, and was fired. A few years later, I left that big company to work for another startup. I was concerned about that non-compete, so I did a bit of checking and found that it was NOT A CONTRACT as far as the law was concerned. You see, a contract by definition requires consideration on both sides. The relevant courts had repeatedly found that an offer of &lt;i&gt;initial&lt;/i&gt; employment counted as consideration, but an offer of &lt;i&gt;continued&lt;/i&gt; employment did not. Thus, what I had signed was not a contract. Legally, it wasn&amp;#x27;t a non-binding or unenforceable contract. It was a non-entity. A piece of paper with some irrelevant squiggles on it.&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;ve heard that other ex-employees (and their lawyers and the courts) reaching the same conclusion is the reason that the big company in question adopted a policy of technically firing everyone from any startup they acquired, and then re-hiring them immediately under the same terms. The sole effect was to turn that continued employment into initial employment, non-consideration into consideration, validating the rest of the contract. It&amp;#x27;s now standard practice throughout the industry.</text></comment>
<story><title>Millions of workers believe they are bound by non-binding contracts</title><url>http://thespeakernewsjournal.com/business/millions-of-workers-are-bound-by-non-binding-contracts/</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>maxander</author><text>It doesn’t need to be enforceable, as far as the minimum wage class is concerned- if the spurious suit alone would have the defendant summoned to court multiple times over months, and likely unemployed during that time, it’s just as destructive as a real, successful suit would be for an ex-Googler, if not moreso.  Without wages they can’t pay rent or feed their family (because this class is rarely able to accumulate savings.). If they &lt;i&gt;can&lt;/i&gt; get a job before the suit resolves, having to move shifts around to get to court appointments could make them lose it again.  And that’s assuming they have complete faith, somehow, that the law would rule in their favor- when they’re fighting a corporation, have minimal legal resources if their own, they would have to be &lt;i&gt;very&lt;/i&gt; sure they live in a no-enforcement state- because a successful suit would end their financial life.</text></comment>