Posted on March 23, 2009 by Angelo Tartaro

What Should I Look for in a New Employment Contract? Do I Need an Attorney?

Most employees in Connecticut and New York are not offered contracts and are hired as “employees at will.” That means their employment can be terminated at any time, for any reason, provided that antidiscrimination statutes are not violated. However, even if hired as an employee at will, a new hire may be offered agreements that are legally binding, such as, non-compete agreements, confidentiality agreements, agreements as to ownership of intellectual property rights.

And, some employees, primarily executive, managerial and professional employees, are offered comprehensive employment contracts. These contracts vary so much it is difficult to identify “what you should look for.” Typically, the contract will have a definite term, provisions for terminating the contract for cause or not for cause, compensation, duties and responsibilities (by incorporating a position description) and provisions governing confidentiality and intellectual property rights. You may be asked to give up the right to sue and to submit any disputes to arbitration. The contract could include many, many other provisions covering specific jobs in specific industries.

 

So, the short answer to your questions is: if you sign any type of agreement relating to your employment, you are always better off reviewing it first with an attorney of your choice.

Tags: , ,
Posted on October 17, 2008 by Angelo Tartaro

Reminder From NY Appellate Court: In Real Estate, Rely Only on the Written Contract

A New York Appellate Court, in a recent decision, reminds us that in a real estate transaction, the parties should rely only on the written contract. The case is Friedman v. Kagan, 2008 Slip Op. 07624 (2d Dep’t).

The plaintiffs commenced the lawsuit because, having purchased a single family residence, they claimed the defendant/sellers dissuaded them from having the basement professionally inspected for mold. The house was contaminated with “toxic” mold. But, the written contract included a disclaimer that the purchasers were not relying on oral representations and the house was being sold “as is.”

 

The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants and the appellate court affirmed. For our non-lawyer readers, that means decision for the defendants without a trial because there are no facts at issue. The facts not at issue are that the written contract disclaimed any reliance of oral representations.

 

The plaintiffs tried an alternative theory that the mold was fraudulently concealed but that went no where either.

 

We shouldn’t need the reminders but, being human, repetition is helpful: a real estate contract has to be in writing. A disclaimer, similar to that found in this case, tends to be the norm. Thus, the parties should not rely on oral representation, they should “get it in writing.”

 

Image: Slime Mold from Wikipedia Commons

Tags: , , , , , ,