competing

23:16 Feb 12, 2014 

Right!
But I'm afraid I don't agree with your analysis of the flawed sentence; if this is not an editing error by an educated native speaker (which might have hinted at missing words), it is much more likely to be a simple preposition error in an otherwise correct sentence.

In which case, my instinctive reading (reading across the preposition error, as I initially did) would be:

"not allowed to perform others activities competing FOR the time they must..."

Which means that the two activities (= for XXX and not for XXX) are competing with each other for the person's time.

I think it is very dangerous to assume that these activities are necessarily of a competing nature in terms of the business (e.g. working for a rival); we don't know what the exact business situation is, so that could amount to over-interpretation.

23:10 Feb 12, 2014 

Des infos utiles sur ce site concernant "clause d'exclusivité" et "clause de non concurrence".
http://www.apce.com/pid2822/clause-non-concurrence.html

23:02 Feb 12, 2014 

For sure! From a brasilian company (the same full sentence can be "googled"). I guess that for the writter, "to" is related to "the time" in the sens of "pour la durée (du contrat)", and "competing" should be understood as "competing with the company".

22:51 Feb 12, 2014 

There is soemthing wrong with this source text; maybe it is an editing error, unless this was written by a non-native speaker.

AFAIK, we only ever use 'competing' with the prepositions 'with' or 'for'; 'competing to' just sounds completely wrong (other than in a collocation with a following verb in the infinitive, as in 'competing to win').

The problem is, as there is clearly at least ONE error, we don't know if this makes it ambiguous or not?