I invented Jelly Belly jelly beans

[Mr. Jelly Belly]

Jurisdiction

California

I invented jelly belly jelly beans in 1976. My contract manufacture came to me after they became successful and said he was buying the trademark from me or would stop making them and rename them. I felt I had no choice and signed his contract. I learned about a year ago that his 20 year non compete clause made it an illegal contract and there is no statue of limitations on an illegal contract. I found a lawyer who was excited to take on my case. He wrote jelly belly a letter and got a response and said he wrote them back, but i never saw any additional letters. This lawyer after being asked a dozen times to please release me from the contract and won't. I feel strongly there is a reason not to release me from the contract that would restrict me from pursuing any further legal action. I'd love to discuss this with anyone who might have ideas for me or willing to help. I have a documentary that you can see on YouTube free. Candyman The David Klein story. I only learned it was an illegal contract after that was filmed. I can get great media attention for any lawyer willing to help me. Thanks for your time.

 

[zddoodah]

I learned about a year ago that his 20 year non compete clause made it an illegal contract

And how exactly did you learn this? Is this a reference to section 16600 of the California Business & Professions Code? If so, I suggest you read it very carefully, paying particular attention to the words "to that extent."

and there is no statue of limitations on an illegal contract.

In this context, a statute of limitations is a law that provides how long after accrual of a cause of action the plaintiff has to file suit. The notion of there being a statute of limitations "on [a] contract" doesn't make sense.

This lawyer after being asked a dozen times to please release me from the contract and won't.

What contract? Are you talking about a written retainer agreement between you and a lawyer? If so, the lawyer has no ability to deny you a "release." You're free to fire your lawyer at any time.

I'd love to discuss this with anyone who might have ideas for me or willing to help.

You're free to ask questions here, but no one here is going to contact you off the boards. A "find a lawyer" link appears near the bottom of pretty much every page at this site.

 

[Mr. Jelly Belly]

These are cases we were referencing. Yes 16600. The no statue of limitations was in reference to the law when it comes to an illegal contract.

I felt it would be best to ask if anyone had an interest in my case, but if they won't then that's ok.

 

[army judge]

These are cases we were referencing. Yes 16600. The no statue of limitations was in reference to the law when it comes to an illegal contract.

I felt it would be best to ask if anyone had an interest in my case, but if they won't then that's ok.

Ethical lawyers don't scour the internet seeking clients. however scammers, trolls, and all other manner of grifters do engage in such unsavory practices.

If you wish to retain another counsel, I suggest you do it the old fashion way, make appointments to discuss your issues.

Your current technique will only allow you to be fleeced more than you might have been in the past.

 

[zddoodah]

These are cases we were referencing. Yes 16600. The no statue of limitations was in reference to the law when it comes to an illegal contract.

As I assume you know, B&P 16600 states that any contract "by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void" (emphasis added). I haven't looked at any cases. However, the words "to that extent" mean that the portion of the contract that purports to restrain the person from engaging in a lawful profession, etc. is unenforceable. It does not mean that the entire contract is unenforceable. In the case of the contract you described, the 20 year non-competition provision expired over two decades ago, so the issue is long since moot. Additionally, there are exceptions to B&P 16600 that might apply to your situation.

I felt it would be best to ask if anyone had an interest in my case, but if they won't then that's ok.

These boards are not the place to find a lawyer. As I mentioned, there is a "find a lawyer" link at the bottom of every page at this site (and there are numerous other sites with "find a lawyer" search tools.

 

[Mr. Jelly Belly]

What exceptions do you believe could be?

I understand not to look here for a lawyer and appreciate your information on that.

 

[zddoodah]

What exceptions do you believe could be?

The most common exception is in a case in which a business is sold from one person to another, but you can read the chapter in which 16600 appears.

 

[ElleMD]

Non-competes refer to the ability of an employee to work for a direct competitor for some period of time and under some specified conditions. It has nothing to do with selling a trademark.

If you worked in R & D for Nestle, you might well have a non-compete that prohibits you going directly to work in R & D for Hershey. California frowns on them more than many other states, perhaps due to the transient nature of the many techies in Silicon Valley.

It is also unclear what you propose to do about a contract that you signed 41 years ago.

 

[zddoodah]

Non-competes refer to the ability of an employee to work for a direct competitor for some period of time and under some specified conditions. It has nothing to do with selling a trademark.

There are a number of different types of non-compete agreements, only some of which involve employee-employer situations. It is quite common for contracts for the transfer of trademarks to include non-compete agreements.

California frowns on them more than many other states, perhaps due to the transient nature of the many techies in Silicon Valley.

B&P 16600 has been on the books for over 75 years, so that's not the reason, but it certainly has a great deal of application in such situations.

It is also unclear what you propose to do about a contract that you signed 41 years ago.

Given the value of the trademark mentioned, it seems as though the OP wants to void the transfer and acquire (or reacquire) ownership of the mark. Unfortunately for the OP, it is a misguided proposition for several reasons, including the reason I mentioned and a couple others.

 

[ElleMD]

Yes, there can be NCA for other purposes but this one, in this code seems to be implying the type I mentioned. While that particular clause was enacted long before the dot com era, the narrowing application of it, and the fact it still exists, appears to be more closely tied to the tech boom. I could be wrong about that being the reason, but it seems awfully coincidental. CA is certainly more restrictive than other states.

 

[zddoodah]

this one, in this code seems to be implying the type I mentioned.

I don't see the implication. "[E]ngaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind" could hardly be more broad.

While that particular clause was enacted long before the dot com era, the narrowing application of it, and the fact it still exists, appears to be more closely tied to the tech boom.

Not sure what you mean by "narrowing application of it." While I don't have an annotated B&P Code handy, I don't think the statutory language has ever changed much and, if anything, the reach of the law has broadened, not narrowed, over the years. As for "the fact it still exists," it still exists because a majority of California legislators has never thought it should be repealed. It has nothing to do with "the tech boom."

I could be wrong about that being the reason, but it seems awfully coincidental.

Maybe I'm just not following what you're saying, but the continued existence of a WWII era statute has little or nothing to do with any particular intervening economic period.

CA is certainly more restrictive than other states.

Concur.

 

[ElleMD]

Post #3 cites employment based cases (at least 3 are, haven't read the 4th). While certain principles can apply outside an employment scenario, it seemed to me that the OP was referring to some sort of employment based NCA.

Speculating over why CA has kept the law in place this long doesn't really have any bearing on the OP's question. I don't want to hi-jack the thread with public policy debate. Just ignore my aside in the first post.

 

[army judge]

I invented jelly belly jelly beans in 1976. My contract manufacture came to me after they became successful and said he was buying the trademark from me or would stop making them and rename them. I felt I had no choice and signed his contract. I learned about a year ago that his 20 year non compete clause made it an illegal contract and there is no statue of limitations on an illegal contract. I found a lawyer who was excited to take on my case. He wrote jelly belly a letter and got a response and said he wrote them back, but i never saw any additional letters. This lawyer after being asked a dozen times to please release me from the contract and won't. I feel strongly there is a reason not to release me from the contract that would restrict me from pursuing any further legal action. I'd love to discuss this with anyone who might have ideas for me or willing to help. I have a documentary that you can see on YouTube free. Candyman The David Klein story. I only learned it was an illegal contract after that was filmed. I can get great media attention for any lawyer willing to help me. Thanks for your time.

I've loved your delicious treat for decades.

Former president Reagan loved them, too.

I keep a jar of your delightful confection on my desk, beside my bed, and next to my recliner in our family room.

I have a case of the delicious candies in my "prepper pantry", just in case.

I hope you get what you seek, because your delightful, little concoctions have given me immense satisfaction for decades.

 

[Mr. Jelly Belly]

Yes Ronald Reagan. I also just recalled Jerry Lewis buying some back when I was in people magazine. He asked for extra black licorice ones.

Thank you for your kind words.

 

[army judge]

Yes Ronald Reagan. I also just recalled Jerry Lewis buying some back when I was in people magazine. He asked for extra black licorice ones.

Thank you for your kind words.

Yes, Jerry Lewis, what a wonderful human being.
His passing was said, because he did much charitable work over the years.

Too many little people get squeezed by the greedy predators.