No photo
Asker
Posted almost 3 years ago.

Thank you very much for responding quickly. I agree that the Client in this definition means the client to which I was assigned.

But the ambiguity arises because of an equally possible interpretation of the definition like this:

{"Restricted Party" shall mean any business in direct or indirect competition with}
[ "Company V" ] or
[ a Client that Employee was assigned to ]

as well as

{"Restricted Party" shall mean }
[ any business in direct or indirect competition with "Company V" ] or
[ a Client that Employee was assigned to ]

Why would the law back one versus the other?
Is there a certain aspect of this language that makes one interpretation more meaningful than other?

Thanks much!

No photo
Asker
Posted almost 3 years ago.

Because this clause is about "non-compete", I was naturally directed to interpret this definition on the basis of competition.

No photo
Asker
Posted almost 3 years ago.

The client does not compete with the vendor, so I am wondering how does the non-compete clause consider the client itself as a restricted party.

No photo
Asker
Posted almost 3 years ago.

Much appreciate your input Mr.Higgins. Thanks.