Sure, my point is that the interest in the company
by KeoughCharles05 (2024-04-24 11:47:30)

In reply to: In the latter case  posted by ndtnguy

Post Reply Return to Back Room

is not all that valuable unless the company has the owner in an employment contract -- that contract is where the negotiation should be, and contemplation of liquidated damages seems appropriate in these cases moreso than a prohibition against competing whenever the owner actually departs.



That's not really the case
by ndtnguy  (2024-04-24 11:57:09)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

There are plenty of circumstances where a company is perfectly viable following an owner's (or co-owner's) departure, provided the former owner himself isn't out there competing.

And in the owner context, the problem isn't keeping him from departing (who, exactly, is the owner going to make that promise to whilst he's still the owner), it's keeping him from changing his mind after he voluntarily decides to depart.