[BC] How standard is THIS?

[Cowboy]

On Sunday 14 October 2007 11:28 am, JYRussell at academicplanet.com wrote:

>  "Do you realize that if you work for these people, even part time, every
>  tool you ever use doing things for them becomes their property?  It says
>  "including but not limited to computers, hard drives, email accounts" and
>  she read off a laundry list of other things.
>  
>     I wonder how many other companies expect us to be in the business of
>  donating all our personal equipment?  Buying things on our own dime just to
>  give them away?
>  
>  How standard is this, now...?

 I have a "standard" answer.............

 but seriously, it's not unheard of, but it is a rarity.
 Generally penned by some junior lawyer "just looking out for his client's
 best interest" who doesn't bother to understand the ramifications,
 or worse, DOES understand them !

 There are three possible answers, as far as I'm concerned.
 1. To tell the client directly ( not the lawyer ) that while I'd really like
 to establish a relationship with them, these clauses here, make that impossible,
 unless we can dispense with......
 Often, the client is not aware what some lawyer wrote in, and out go those clauses.
 Otherwise, it's a "polite" refusal to accept their "agreement" as written.

 2. Strike the portions you don't agree with. Initial and date each strike.
  Sometimes ( doesn't usually work with a bank ) the client doesn't read the copy
 you've returned with signature, so your version becomes valid.
 Worst case if it turns out to be a problem later, you have documented proof that
 there was no "understanding" between the parties, hence no "contract" at all, and you
 are not bound. ( neither are they. Cash the check quick )

 3. Return your own contract in lieu of theirs.
 Cover all of the points they did, meaning essentially the same thing but worded
 differently, ( preferably ambiguously in your favor ) leaving out those points you don't want,
 and add a few of your own for good measure.
 I've done this, and had a revised version of my own sent back to me, missing 
 ( an oversight ? ) those parts I'd left out, and re-wording the additions I'd made to clarify
 the ambiguities.
 Matters not. We end up with something we both agree to, and that one becomes
 the only relevant contract.

 In any case, I'd check with a lawyer familiar with contract law in your jurisdiction.

-- 
Cowboy