Breach of a Customer-Protection Clause

Economic damage to companies arises not only from disloyal employees or industrial espionage by competitors, but often from former employees or subcontractors who, contrary to applicable legal provisions or even explicit contractual customer-protection clauses, poach clients and customers and thus restrict or completely prevent fair competition. Our commercial investigators in Frankfurt handle the evidential work: +49 69 1201 8431.

When Employees Not Only Leave But Also Strike Back …

In more than 50 per cent of all termination cases, whether initiated by the employer or the employee, the parties do not part on amicable terms. The employee feels deceived, cheated or unfairly treated and insufficiently regarded. In some cases the employer and employee never see one another again; more commonly, however, the employee moves within the same industry because of their training and professional background. In order to take revenge on a supposedly unfair former employer, many then breach the competition and customer-protection clauses recorded in their contract, which stipulate, on the one hand, that the employee must not promptly take up employment with a competing company and, on the other hand, must not solicit clients of the former employer for the new employer or for their own business.

If you detect such illegal activities and can establish proof, you can pursue the perpetrator for damages. The corporate investigators of Kurtz Investigations Frankfurt monitor the target and document court-admissible evidence: kontakt@kurtz-detektei-frankfurt.de.

When an Offer Becomes a Shut-Out: Restrictive Contracts Against Customers via Exclusive Clauses

Not only former employees commit competition law breaches by poaching customers; in some sectors competitors also use unlawful exclusivity clauses to intimidate customers and to prevent fair competition and a genuine contest on price and quality. One example:

Example: Restrictive Contract on the Construction Site

The Steinbach family want to build a house and are looking for a sanitary installer. Among the local Frankfurt firms, three are shortlisted by the Steinbachs. Naturally, in addition to the personal impression, they want an overview of the expected costs, so they ask all three companies for a site visit so that each can prepare a cost estimate. Contractor A has the first on-site appointment, inspects the required works and issues a preliminary contract to the Steinbachs. This contains a clause stating that the family may commission only company A for the execution of the works as described at the time of the contract. As a result, contractors B and C – without having inspected the project – are disadvantaged from the outset, seemingly excluded from the contract. Moreover, the Steinbach family have effectively delivered themselves entirely to the mercy of contractor A.

If you are a customer of a company that has bound you in the manner described above or in a similar way, contact our commercial investigators in Frankfurt immediately. In most of the cases we know, such clauses are contrary to public policy and therefore invalid. The same applies to companies that discover that allegedly secure orders are awarded to a competitor through the use of restrictive contracts. Our Frankfurt detectives carry out case-specific and comprehensive investigations and provide you with court-admissible evidence in both scenarios.