Nowt to worry about there Ron, they know they can’t do owt about it but just need to remind you. Work away
Be careful what you agree to Ron, as the confidential information clause is very vague and broad and so potentially catches a lot of stuff that might not ordinarily be deemed confidential. It’s a slightly daft example, but “business activities“ could include you telling someone at your new place “my previous employer sold bathroom fittings”. I’d ask them to define/specify the classes of information more narrowly and agree the parameters before signing anything. FYI - I’ve recently advised on and settled a breach of confidentiality claim, acting for the director of a company who provided outside broadcast services to the BBC (who weren’t a party), albeit again in a commercial rather than employment context.
Well done Ron. Remember, keep what you learned from the previous company confidential. You know - fire hot, water wet, it ain't the falling that kills ya it's the sudden stop at the end, don't eat the yellow snow, etc.
This used to come up a fair bit in the olden days (the 90's) usually with sales monkeys or company directors. The poor souls would be paid 3 months garden leave while they waited for the clock to run out.
Don't - or ask them 'please clarify what information you might have is 'confidential' just a one liner, cause him some work then sell the information he tells you to a third party company other than yours
I disagree with that. The ambit of the clause needs to be clarified or else some zealous try-hard at the previous company might over-interpret its reach and a few months down the line @wroughtironron finds himself being accused of disclosing information which shouldn’t be caught by the clause. Believe me, I make quite a chunk of my fee income as a result of people failing to nail down the precise meaning of contractual terms at the start of a situation who then end up spending inordinate amounts of time and money later down the line arguing about their interpretation. There's also a psychological element to this. The guy who wrote the email probably wants to feel validated and to save face, but ignoring him sends the opposite message. Indulge him, and in doing so you’ll avoid making this personal and also will have the opportunity to get out ahead of the problem by narrowing down the ambit of the clause, plus you’ll know with more certainty what you can and can’t disclose and if you string negotiations out long enough it dissipates the other side’s energy. If you ignore him you may well be perfectly fine and you never hear from him again, but the downside is that there’s a small risk of creating a much bigger and more expensive problem.
No need Ron IMHO, in a business sense anyway. If you wish to maintain a personal relationship with your ex boss then that's different and can/should be done outside of his company email address.
Maybe on the clause element, and only then “maybe”. On the physchological element. Not my circus, not my monkey. I’d ignore it.
It’s much cheaper to have a fence at the top of the cliff than an ambulance at the bottom. A stitch in time saves nine Etc A fair proportion of my fees come from clients who ignore those folksy bits of advice.
