Company name in contract

[MWF]

A company I used to work for gave me a contract with barring out clause in it. In this clause it references the company by name but for some parts of the clause when referencing the company the 'Limited' part of the name has been left out.

I was wondering how this was viewed legally, if the parts of the contract reference a company but fail to include the full name ie "Joe Bloggs" instead of "Joe Bloggs limited" does the clause still stand or does it only stand in regard to the company before it went limited?

 

[Stonelaughter]

I think that a Court, Tribunal etc (i.e. the legal authority in such matters) would tend to look for the SPIRIT of the Contract - and small technicalities like that wouldn't change its effectiveness.

This IS only a lay opinion however and someone with legal experience may know different.

 

[MWF]

I see, I just wasn't sure if a company name is seen as a different legal entity with and without the Limited declaration.

Thank you for the reply, I do really appreciate it.

 

[itaufait]

IANAL, but I'd agree with what Stonelaughter said and also that contract doesn't sound like it's been written by a lawyer...

 

[Antonia @limeone.com]

In some contracts, to save time the names are shortened. So you have

Between

Joe Bloggs Ltd ( Joe Bloggs)

and

John Smith (the Employee)

At the top of the contract and the rest refers to the employee and just Joe Bloggs. This is acceptable legal drafting and quite normal. Unless there is a definition as this example shows then there may be problems.

 

[MWF]

Thanks for that, I use the shortened format myself on contracts.

On this one it defines the parties and titles the company as Joe Bloggs Limited with no shortening, it then often refers to the company both with and without the limited definition.

As you can tell I am keen to get out of a two year barring out clause this agency had in my contract, this is because one of their clients really wants to work with me.

 

[Antonia @limeone.com]

Normally a 2 year bar would be challengeable unless you occupied a senior role. You really should get advice on the enforceability of the whole contract. For a quote for this just scan the doc and send it over to me.

 

[MWF]

Argh I was a director.

I will scan it and send it for a quote Antonia.

 

[beenthruthemill]

I have a feeling a 2 year bar could be considered a restraint of trade. When you left this company were you fired or was it voluntary. More often than not it's the documentation on you're exit which is more important than when you joined. An example might be in 1990 you joined as a pig semen salesman. You're previous occupation was the same and on leaving your current employer after 18 years of doing the same job he wished to disbar you from earning a living. I strongly suspect that unless he continued to pay you for gardening leave, that he could enforce the bar.

I had the unpleasant duty of firing 3 directors of a small public company and the hoops I had to jump through to get rid of them without being hauled before an employment tribunal could fill a book. Suffice to say the advice I was given by a top city law firm when one of the ex directors, on full pay as per his contract was suspected of breaching his contract was to leave well alone - enuf said

ianal, this is just my opinion based on my experiences