America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 12 years ago by rfenst. 26 replies replies.
News: Sam Leccia Banned From 2011 IPCPR Trade Show
Jump to Bottom | Previous Topic | Next Topic
GSS1956 Offline
#1 Posted: Sat, Jul 16 2011, 5:12 PM EST
Joined: 08-04-2000
Posts: 2,043
ram27bat http://www.acigarsmoker.com/2011/07/...ed-from-ipcpr/
I am saddened to announce that my Debut is on hold. I have been barred from attending the Cigar Show by court order. I will however, be vigorously pursuing Oliva's failure to fulfill it’s contractual obligations to me and my family. I have faith in the legal system and I will see you all as soon as possible. Thank You all, from the bottom of my heart, for your continued support.
Wont U ban together with all your B/SOTL to boycott this Co. A man has a right to make a living !
engletl Offline
#2 Posted: Sat, Jul 16 2011, 5:20 PM EST
Joined: 12-26-2000
Posts: 26,493
sad to see...but this article only alludes to Sam's side of the issue at hand
HockeyDad Offline
#3 Posted: Sat, Jul 16 2011, 5:28 PM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,134
It is an outrage.

(Who is he?)
donutboy2000 Offline
#4 Posted: Sat, Jul 16 2011, 5:35 PM EST
Joined: 11-20-2001
Posts: 25,000
HockeyDad wrote:
It is an outrage.

(Who is he?)




A dude that signed a five year non-compete agreement.
HockeyDad Offline
#5 Posted: Sat, Jul 16 2011, 5:36 PM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,134
donutboy2000 wrote:
A dude that signed a five year non-compete agreement.



5 year....what a dumb-ass!
GSS1956 Offline
#6 Posted: Sat, Jul 16 2011, 6:01 PM EST
Joined: 08-04-2000
Posts: 2,043
Oh so yea stand behind the small guy ah ! We'll have to see how this all plays out . I believe he can still release the Debute but not attend the show.
Go for it Sam .
HockeyDad Offline
#7 Posted: Sat, Jul 16 2011, 8:29 PM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,134
Drive them from the field of battle. Hear the lamentation of their women.
jackconrad Offline
#8 Posted: Sat, Jul 16 2011, 8:33 PM EST
Joined: 06-09-2003
Posts: 67,461
5 year agreements are unenforcible in court..
donutboy2000 Offline
#9 Posted: Sun, Jul 17 2011, 12:43 AM EST
Joined: 11-20-2001
Posts: 25,000
jackconrad wrote:
5 year agreements are unenforcible in court..



That depends on the state.


Employers are using non-compete agreements with their employees in greater numbers than they used to. These agreements prevent present and former employees from working with competitors. They also limit the chance that private employer information or trade secrets are given to another company.

Enforceability
As long as non-compete clauses in employment contracts meet acceptable standards, courts will generally uphold them. Employees may face legal penalties if they violate a non-compete clause. These penalties include money damages or an injunction that prevents further violations.

Along with the violating employee, the company that hires her may also face penalties. Any company that helps an employee violate a non-compete clause may have to pay damages. Courts don't want companies to prosper from breaches of contracts. Many states don't favor non-compete clauses. They impose restrictions on when they can be used. New York is a state that limits enforceability. Some states, such as California, are very strict and may not enforce a non-compete clause at all.

lawyers.com
daveincincy Offline
#10 Posted: Sun, Jul 17 2011, 8:07 AM EST
Joined: 08-11-2006
Posts: 20,033
Quote:
A man has a right to make a living!


:BS Flag:

Break your non-compete, you get what you have coming to you. Don't give me the "a man has a right to make a living" card. Non-competes (contracts in general) mean absolutely NOTHING to most people these days. Most probably don't even read them when they sign them. Part of the problem to is that the people who break the contract know that enforcement is weak, and the payment of any damages is unlikely to ever be collected. At least that is my experience on a not so grand level. If Sam broke his non-compete he needs to "man up" and take his lumps...."a man has a right to make a living".... Shame on you STFU
wheelrite Offline
#11 Posted: Sun, Jul 17 2011, 4:24 PM EST
Joined: 11-01-2006
Posts: 50,119
Who cares...

The complete story will come out in court...

Torano was gonna distribute these cigars,

Torano is a 2nd or 3rd tier smoke as these likely will be too..,,,
wheelrite Offline
#12 Posted: Sun, Jul 17 2011, 4:30 PM EST
Joined: 11-01-2006
Posts: 50,119
BTW,,,

This guy is obviously not real bright.

Begging for people to boycott. I'm sure this will add to his credibility in Court..
rfenst Offline
#13 Posted: Sun, Jul 17 2011, 4:44 PM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,330
Enforceability generally depends on the scope of the non-compete; job level or job with the employer; length of time of the non-compete; and the geographical area the non-compete applies to. Additionally, it can't result in the employee being unable to make a living. Courts look to reasonably protect the employer's interest. Non-competes are virtually always written/drafted by the employer. Any ambiguity gets interpreted in favor of the employee.

The pertinent geographical area is often the geographical area the employer actually does business in. Certain professions' anti-competes are looked down upon. These are generally state law issues. Viability of non-competes vary from state to state.

There must be consideration for the non-compete to be binding. If the non-compete is part of the written employment agreement/contract, it may be unenforceable depending on the conduct of the employer.

It would seem that someone who manufactures cigars and desires to sell them nationally is probably a federal issue. If the employer has gone overboard, the whole thing may be deemed unenforceable.

In any event how much could one new brand in the entire U.S. cigar market matter? Any body got access to any of the court documents, the anti-compete
wheelrite Offline
#14 Posted: Sun, Jul 17 2011, 4:47 PM EST
Joined: 11-01-2006
Posts: 50,119
rfenst wrote:
Enforceability generally depends on the scope of the non-compete; job level or job with the employer; length of time of the non-compete; and the geographical area the non-compete applies to. Additionally, it can't result in the employee being unable to make a living. Courts look to reasonably protect the employer's interest. Non-competes are virtually always written/drafted by the employer. Any ambiguity gets interpreted in favor of the employee.

The pertinent geographical area is often the geographical area the employer actually does business in. Certain professions' anti-competes are looked down upon. These are generally state law issues. Viability of non-competes vary from state to state.

There must be consideration for the non-compete to be binding. If the non-compete is part of the written employment agreement/contract, it may be unenforceable depending on the conduct of the employer.

It would seem that someone who manufactures cigars and desires to sell them nationally is probably a federal issue. If the employer has gone overboard, the whole thing may be deemed unenforceable.

In any event how much could one new brand in the entire U.S. cigar market matter? Any body got access to any of the court documents, the anti-compete


I read that C&P too on cigarasylum..
rfenst Offline
#15 Posted: Sun, Jul 17 2011, 5:11 PM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,330
wheelrite wrote:
I read that C&P too on cigarasylum..


NOT a c&p. 100% my original work.
Otherwise, it would be in quotes and reference the source
wheelrite Offline
#16 Posted: Sun, Jul 17 2011, 5:14 PM EST
Joined: 11-01-2006
Posts: 50,119

Trading: (27)

Re: Sam Leccia's Debut on hold


If the issue is a non-compete agreement/contract generally you have to show that there is a likelihood of irreparable harm/injury if the preliminary injunction is not granted.

If the case makes it to trial the judge reviews the agreement using a test typically developed under the case law of that state (common law). There are a number of factors that are considered. Geographic scope, length of time, norms within the industry, and public policy are some factors that are considered. It varies from state to state depending on how the case law developed within that state.
__________________
Curious George
ZRX1200 Offline
#17 Posted: Sun, Jul 17 2011, 5:15 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,613
Robert is a plagiarist!!!
rfenst Offline
#18 Posted: Sun, Jul 17 2011, 5:22 PM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,330
ZRX1200 wrote:
Robert is a plagiarist!!!


Not biting that fish- if you remember what I mean..
donutboy2000 Offline
#19 Posted: Sun, Jul 17 2011, 5:57 PM EST
Joined: 11-20-2001
Posts: 25,000
"I am always amazed by how quickly people will draw conclusions with little more than marginal information. Prudence prevents me from getting into details about this situation. I will however offer a few items for consideration. The Oliva Cigar Co is not a big conglomerate, it is a small family owned business. The consistency of actions by the family and the company throughout the years should carry some weight when hasty generalizations are being made. For years Oliva has provided world class cigars at reasonable prices, even when the economy allowed for gouging. We have sought to bring new and innovative products to the genuine aficionado and to always advance our craft. Furthermore, the actual facts of the matter are not being sought by those eager to draw conclusions. Consider that a judge heard facts that you have not and ruled accordingly. Consider also that during the course of future trials many more facts will be divulged. The life’s work of an honorable family and company should be considered. However, if that is not compelling enough, those who have taken an interest in this dispute should follow the litigation closely. Some patience may save you some “egg on the face” as well as surprise you."

Jose Oliva


from a site that cannot be named
jackconrad Offline
#20 Posted: Sun, Jul 17 2011, 5:57 PM EST
Joined: 06-09-2003
Posts: 67,461
Do you have a Non Cut n Paste agreement ?
wheelrite Offline
#21 Posted: Sun, Jul 17 2011, 6:24 PM EST
Joined: 11-01-2006
Posts: 50,119
donutboy2000 wrote:
"I am always amazed by how quickly people will draw conclusions with little more than marginal information. Prudence prevents me from getting into details about this situation. I will however offer a few items for consideration. The Oliva Cigar Co is not a big conglomerate, it is a small family owned business. The consistency of actions by the family and the company throughout the years should carry some weight when hasty generalizations are being made. For years Oliva has provided world class cigars at reasonable prices, even when the economy allowed for gouging. We have sought to bring new and innovative products to the genuine aficionado and to always advance our craft. Furthermore, the actual facts of the matter are not being sought by those eager to draw conclusions. Consider that a judge heard facts that you have not and ruled accordingly. Consider also that during the course of future trials many more facts will be divulged. The life’s work of an honorable family and company should be considered. However, if that is not compelling enough, those who have taken an interest in this dispute should follow the litigation closely. Some patience may save you some “egg on the face” as well as surprise you."

Jose Oliva


from a site that cannot be named


Midgetporn.com ?
robertknyc Offline
#22 Posted: Thu, Jul 21 2011, 11:13 AM EST
Joined: 07-24-2003
Posts: 5,475
Wrong forum outrage!
puffytstogie Offline
#23 Posted: Sat, Jul 23 2011, 1:11 PM EST
Joined: 12-21-2009
Posts: 130
How does a non compete clause work when the employee is terminated? I would think a company couldn't hire an employee, use his ideas, then dump the employee and expect he wouldn't go work somewhere else?
rfenst Offline
#24 Posted: Sat, Jul 23 2011, 10:00 PM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,330
puffytstogie wrote:
How does a non compete clause work when the employee is terminated? I would think a company couldn't hire an employee, use his ideas, then dump the employee and expect he wouldn't go work somewhere else?



Please tell me you don't believe that this doesn't happen in the business world...

The key is "consideration" in the contractual sense. If there was any, the non-compete agreement would still be binding. The key, however, is that each state has its own laws, which may vary significantly.
puffytstogie Offline
#25 Posted: Sat, Jul 23 2011, 10:17 PM EST
Joined: 12-21-2009
Posts: 130
I know it happens, that is why I asked the question. This was not a case of the employee leaving to start his own little company competing against his former employer. I was wondering if his chances are better because of what happened?
rfenst Offline
#26 Posted: Sun, Jul 24 2011, 2:05 PM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,330
puffytstogie wrote:
I know it happens, that is why I asked the question. This was not a case of the employee leaving to start his own little company competing against his former employer. I was wondering if his chances are better because of what happened?


May depend if he had an employment contract or was an employee at will. If he was fired without cause, I would tend to think so.

Remember, legal action to enforce the non-compete is usually not for damages. It is an action in "Equity".

Equitable actions not only concern the contents of the written non-compete, but also the general concept of fairness, which ideally should be a major reason for whatever the court decides.

Now, if there is a "reasonable" liquidated damages clause associated with the non-compete, the employee probably has less of a chance of prevailing and the employer could get an order enjoin the employee and a monetary award for breach of contract.

Notwithstanding all of this, remember that each state's laws are different and each case is different (as is each judge).
Users browsing this topic
Guest
Back to Top