Non-Competition Contract Doesn’t Vitiate Agents’ Duty Of Loyalty

California has codified various legal and equitable maxims in its Civil Code. However, a quick read of some of these maxims leaves one wondering whether the legislature has simply codified the sayings of Yoda.

For example, Civil Code Section 3536 cryptically provides “The greater contains the less” while Section 3538 helpfully adds some certainty by stating: “That is certain which can be made certain.”

I’ve always been puzzled by Section 3537 which oracularly opines “Superfluity does not vitiate”. Is this statute necessary or is it simply superfluous? If it is superfluous, does it vitiate?

Please see full article below for more information.

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

Written by:

Published In:

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, using LinkedIn ›

* With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name.
×
Loading...
×
×