Sorry I didn't get to respond earlier....

Discussion in 'Professional Trading' started by kenny267, Sep 11, 2005.

  1. 3 yr contracts are perfectly enforceable in court. Not sure what the exact provisions are for the $25k limit though. Is this your money?

    It will cost you about $250 to get this reviewed by a lawyer who specializes in exchange regulations. It is worth every cent. When you run into trouble, he will be the guy who will get you out at minimum cost.

    Good luck.
     
    #11     Sep 11, 2005
  2. Are u kidding me $25000 min requirement and u wont get paid if you go below that amount
    and a 3 year contract dammm
    i would personably not sign anything like that
    u never know hat time tell and come either u get a better opportunity or not
    check well before signing anything
     
    #12     Sep 11, 2005
  3. No, in many cases they really are not and especially in california. Go ahead and try it.

    To lock someone out of the industry for three years you would have to have a very compelling reason.

    There is an easy solution though: tell the idiots proposing such a deal to F themselves.

    I would NEVER sign a three year noncompete, enforcable or not.

    My advice: Dont sign it and talk to an attorney before even thinking about getting involved with any type of restrictive contract : odds are the people proposing this are bozos.
     
    #13     Sep 11, 2005
  4. Well... it is in my contracts in Illinois. What you should be asking is what is enforceable under a non-compete and what is the radius agreed to. This is the only grey area. I don't know about California (I don't do business there) but in Illinois and several other states you can be very specific in the contract and it will be enforced in most cases.

    Either way, pay a lawyer who knows the rules to get a proper opinion.
     
    #14     Sep 11, 2005
  5. BSAM

    BSAM

    The prop firms or the lawyers? (Or both?:eek: )
     
    #15     Sep 11, 2005
  6. kenny267

    kenny267

    I don’t have to put up any capital (at least not initially) to work for this company. What I have to do is use their funds to generate 25K in profits…well actually more than that since I will be starting out getting 60% of profits, so in actuality, I would have to generate about 42K in profits. Then that 25K in profits that I have earned will stay in my personal account. Now, two problems I have with this is 1. if I lose and my account drops below 25K, I may not get paid until it rises above 25K again, and 2. if I ever decide to leave the company, I don’t get that 25K…they keep it!

    I will definitely try to get a lawyer to look this over because I don’t want to get screwed.

    Again, thanks for your help. Oh and no, it’s not in Cali, it’s in NY and I don’t know what ETG is.
     
    #16     Sep 11, 2005
  7. Yes get a lawyer that knows the industry and hopefully advises you to bypass any organization proposing these types of stupid non-competes. I would never agreee to such a clause and would immediately end negotiations with someone proposing this .....

    If you get suckered by someone with one of these agreements just move to california ... and let the person or entity try to enforce it in a california court.
     
    #17     Sep 12, 2005
  8. I have to agree about the whole concept of the contract described above...To be forced to labor to make the money to keep in your account .....why not simply place money in an account, and keep 100%....if you think you can do it, it's obviously better, and if you don't think you can do it...then get a job somewhere while you study/prepare for it.

    Don
     
    #18     Sep 12, 2005