Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 9484711" data-attributes="member: 7023840">You mean, let me understand this cause, you know maybe it's me, it's a little messed up maybe, but you're summoning me like I'm you're monkey. What, you think I'm you're trained monkey here to amuse you? I make you laugh, I'm here to frakkin' amuse you? ahemUh, let's see. Non-disparagement clauses are usually boilerplate in settlement documents and (sometimes) in releases and waivers, especially those that go to employment when there has been an agreement, either an employment agreement or termination agreement- which is a settlement in not so many words.And yes, because they are boilerplate, they are usually just included with standard language. And they are &quot;perpetual&quot; in the sense that they are usually not time-limited (they don't expire, and can be enforced at any time). That said, IMO and IME, I think the ratio is probably at least 1: ONE BEELLEEON when it comes to enforcement of it as opposed to the number of times it's tossed into an agreement.That said, it's not that common to have an NDA combined with a non-disparagement for people that aren't directly employed by the contracting entity. I would be more concerned about the scope of the language (what does it cover) than the time, but like a lot of things I've covered, it's probably not malice, but just some overeager person straight out of law school dropping boilerplate language into something that doesn't need it.TLDR; 1. I AM NOT AN ANIMAL! I AM A FREE HUMAN BEING; 2. Hard to make any definitive statements without looking at the actual full contract; 3. I assume, to the extent it is overbroad and dumb, it's not malice, it's just stupid boilerplate.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Snarf Zagyg, post: 9484711, member: 7023840"] You mean, let me understand this cause, you know maybe it's me, it's a little messed up maybe, but you're summoning me like I'm you're monkey. What, you think I'm you're trained monkey here to amuse you? I make you laugh, I'm here to frakkin' amuse you? [I]ahem[/I] Uh, let's see. Non-disparagement clauses are usually boilerplate in settlement documents and (sometimes) in releases and waivers, especially those that go to employment when there has been an agreement, either an employment agreement or termination agreement- which is a settlement in not so many words. And yes, because they are boilerplate, they are usually just included with standard language. And they are "perpetual" in the sense that they are usually not time-limited (they don't expire, and can be enforced at any time). That said, IMO and IME, I think the ratio is probably at least 1: ONE BEELLEEON when it comes to enforcement of it as opposed to the number of times it's tossed into an agreement. That said, it's not that common to have an NDA combined with a non-disparagement for people that aren't directly employed by the contracting entity. I would be more concerned about the scope of the language (what does it cover) than the time, but like a lot of things I've covered, it's probably not malice, but just some overeager person straight out of law school dropping boilerplate language into something that doesn't need it. [B]TLDR[/B]; 1. I AM NOT AN ANIMAL! I AM A FREE HUMAN BEING; 2. Hard to make any definitive statements without looking at the actual full contract; 3. I assume, to the extent it is overbroad and dumb, it's not malice, it's just stupid boilerplate. [/QUOTE]

Verification