This is not a none-compete!
FYRYGOMO:
It is good that you attached the actual agreement to your post as it makes all the difference in the type of response given here.
The document you are asked to sign is not a Covenant not to Compete (none-compete agreement) as you have perceived it to be and in fact I personally find it to be a very fair and reasonable request as it contains none of the unreasonable restrictive elements of a (so-called) traditional none-compete agreement.
Almost all none-compete agreements contain very unreasonable and oppressive time and place clauses which tend to restrict employees from even working and prospecting in the same field as their current employers should their employment be terminated for some reason. A none-compete agreement would contain clauses such as (crude example) "employee agrees not to prospect or serve any clients including those served during current employment for financial planning purposes for a period of two years after termination of employment" and (crude example again) "Furthermore, employee agrees and covenants with Employer that he will not prospect or serve any clients including those served during current employment for financial planning purposes within the same town, city, and county as the current employers for a period of two years…"
All this agreement is asking of you in return for and "In recognition of the resources invested by Vantage for training, education and client relationship building…" is not to contact or prospect only those clients which you served during your tenure with the company and places no restrictions on you to prospect and serve your own clients with your own business supplies and telephone line, etc., etc.
All in all, I find this agreement to be very fair and more than a reasonable request and is one that is safe to put a John Hancock to, and it is of course permissible to counter with suggestions for deletions, changes, and amendments to the agreement before signing it. This process is known in law as Blue Penciling in which you take a red pen (it does not need to be blue) and cross out the word and clauses you find unacceptable and point by arrow to your own suggestion on the same page. It would be like correcting and grading exam papers and homework.
The only thing I do not like about the agreement is that is not as it stands an Integrated Contract, and I suggest you counter with recommendation for making it one by adding the words similar to " … and this contract represents the entire contract and is the final expression of agreements by the parties of all the terms contained …"
An integrated contract is one that is locked and sealed and which leaves no wiggle room for introduction of verbal evidence or the need at a later date by a court to interpret vague and uncertain terms.
fredrikklaw
