The Al Anood's dismissal was unfair with regards to the contract law. The employment contract is a legally binding agreement between two parties that should be adhered to and any breach of contract terms or obligations can result into legal action resulting to damages. However, Al Anood's employer breached this contract by giving him extra work that is not within the contract term. For a contract to be enforceable and legally binding it must have five basic elements. They are: offer, acceptance, intention to create legal relations, consideration and, capacity and competency to create a contract. First, there must be an offer is the willingness of a person to enter into a contract with another party. Therefore, an offer is a proposition which …show more content…
In this scenario, Al Anood was the accepter (offeree) of the contract and she agreed to enter into contract with Khalfan & Sons Co. within the set terms. The terms of the contract stipulated that she will perform the duties of a secretary. There was nowhere it was indicated in his terms of employment contract that he was to perform the duties of the company driver. Thirdly, there is consideration which is the benefits the parties to the contract will receive. In this scenario, Al Anood was to receive RO 200 for 40 hours per week for the services he was to offer with Khalfan & Sons Co. while the company was to receive the services of a company secretary from Al …show more content…
Khalfan & Sons Co. breached the contract by giving Al Anood additional duty which was not mentioned in her employment contract. Including duty of a company driver was not included in the contract terms and Al Anood did not accept to perform this duty during the contract agreement. Therefore, Al Anood was only to perform the duties that were within the contract terms. Firing Al Anood due to accident was a contract breach because she was fired due to mistakes that were not within its contract terms. This means that the Khalfan & Sons Co. terminated the contract without breach of any essential term by Al
The lower court dismissed plaintiff’s claims because plaintiff was an “at will” employee. After Laduzinski appealed, the issues were whether the complaint stated a cause of action for fraudulent inducement, despite that Laduzinski was an at-will employee; and whether the alleged misrepresentations were actionable statements of present fact or non-actionable future promises. The contract between the Alvarez Companies and Laduzinski carried the certain elements of a basic contract since there was an offer, an acceptance, and a consideration. Perez offered plaintiff a position with the Alvarez companies, adding that the company was interested in obtaining plaintiff's contacts to have Before Laduzinski accepted the offer, asked for a two-year contract; However, Perez told plaintiff that his position would be focused on managing the Alvarez companies' workload, since the Alvarez companies has "a lot of clients and were busy. " Laduzinski accepted defendants' offer of at-will employment and quit his job at J.P. Morgan.
Ans. 6 The Court can overrule the decision for terminating Paul as he was not involved in the scheme. Due to his honesty he even admitted to be aware of the scheme. Moreover, no fraud was found in his facility and he should be held responsible for the warehouse for which he is in charge. Furthermore, higher management should be held responsible for not keeping an eye on the activities of supervisors at different locations.
Whether oral or written, the contract must manifest a mutual intent to be bound expressed in a manner capable of being understood, and include a definite offer, unconditional acceptance and consideration.” (Express Contract 2016) The above definition is a much clearer explanation with key elements outlined; 1. mutual intent, 2, expressed in a manner capable of being understood, 3. definite offer, 4. unconditional acceptance and 5. Consideration.
While the relationship between Kingsport and Thomas Orton allows for a finding of respondeat superior, there is still the issue of scope of employment. A finding of scope of employment needs all three elements to be met. If the contract between Kingsport and Thomas Orton was discovered. Then the contends could be used to determine if the first element of, “being of the kind he was employed to perform”, could be met. Since that is not the case, the “going and coming” rule stands in the path of the first element being met. In its present state the third element, “motivated in part by a purpose to serve the employer” is not met, because performing a tortious action doesn’t serve a purpose to Kingsport. Ursula could introduce the question of whether the garage was down before or after Martin was backed over. This could allow a judge to find that the closing of the garage and use of the car were related enough. Therefore, the third element could be met. However, the second element makes all of the conjecture moot, because it is clearly not satisfied. He had already clocked out which was not in the authorized time and space limits of his employment. A judge should find there are no grounds to sue for respondeat superior, because the rule of scope of employment is not met. Ursula Kahn could always sue Thomas Orton individually for damages to
B1.) Stride-Darnley assumed with younger children that rewards will promote good work, good behavior, and good choices. Technically, he is partial right. Giving younger children a reward from completing school work, behaving well, and making great choices has a positive influences on them; however, what you may consider a reward may not be so rewarding to them. In one interview, Stride-Darnley listened as a younger child reported to him that he would purposely get into trouble because he did not like being outside with a lot of children. For younger children they look at free time as being a reward but for that particular child it was a punishment because he did not feel comfortable around a large group of kids. The school social worker and other school officials may have blamed the child’s behavior on his mental disorder (ODD), but the child was very aware of his actions and choices he made. By not having options that would have catered to a better choice for the child, he had to act out to get the choice he wanted. In another observation, a reward produced good behavior and work. This child was redirected and was told his actions are the cause of him losing his computer time.
During the court, P4P issued the Decision Letter (No.660/48/17-10/IX/PHK/4-1999) that the defendant was not allowed to dismiss their employees. The reason was because there was not agreement between the defendant and the 153 employees. The defendant refused that Decision Letter because that would cause the defendant should give the job to the employees back and should pay their wage.
Having evaluated the current state of English contract law, mainly made up of piecemeal solutions, it can be seen that despite being satisfactory and doing its job, there still remain gaps within the law of contract where unfairness is not dealt with. Moreover, due to the ad hoc nature of those piecemeal solutions, the latter have often produced inconsistent justice and have manifested cases of unfairness. Hence, “a relatively small number of respected Justices have endeavored to draw attention to the fact that the application of a general principle might be useful and even necessary in English law.”
In dealing with a person’s livelihood, and often, sense of self, it is of no surprise that ethical issues regarding employment practices are of great concern. The issues of employment at will and due process contracts in the workplace are among the most widely contentious in the realm of employment. Employment at will is the doctrine that employment may be ended, by either party, for good, bad or no cause at all.1 Due process, on the other hand, is the employment practice in which a person may appeal a decision as a means of receiving an explanation and the opportunity to argue against it.2 Employment at will is the standard in the majority of private corporations today and is argued for relentlessly by freedom of contract enthusiasts, however, it is becoming ever more apparent that employment at will contracts reflect the old corporate maxim where the single bottom line, profit, is accented and the well being of other stakeholders, in this case the employee, are of little or no influence. Due process should be accepted as the prevalent employment system as it shelters employees from the hostile actions of the more powerful employer, provides a stable, bilateral contract between both parties and portrays the growing ethical concerns of society.
asked MS Gloria how she help the child with in the class room. She told me that she always put her in the middle of the class in the walker and gives her assistant when she tries to pull herself up. MS Gloria gives her praises by picking her up and saying you are such a good baby. During by observation I did hear her cry or try to talk but MS Gloria did say that she makes sounds.
'The courts have been able to exercise a powerful influence over the content of the employment contract by the use of implied terms.'
UK Essays (2014) Contract Law | Contract Law Cases [Online] Available from: [Accessed Thursday 2nd January 2014]. http://www.ukessays.com/essays/law/contract-law.php#ixzz2pOUSiowF
The English contract Offer and Acceptance General principles There are three basic essentials to the creation of a contract which will be recognised and enforced by the courts. These are: contractual intention, agreement and consideration. The Definition of an Offer. This is an expression of willingness to contract made with the intention (actual or apparent) that it shall become binding on the offeror as soon as the person to whom it is addressed accepts it. An offer can be made to one person or a group of persons, or to the world at large.
The first one is an Offer: An offer is a completely clear statement that has all the terms on which the offeror is ready to go into business with the person the offer is being communicated. There are two kinds of offers, one is a bilateral offer and the other is a unilateral offer. A bilateral offer is when a promise has been made in return
An offer is an expression of willingness to contract on specified terms, requiring only acceptance for a binding agreement to be formed. In other words, an offer is made when one party makes it clear, by actions or words that he is prepared to be bound as soon as the offer is accepted by the party to whom it is made. Offer can be classified into unilateral offers, bilateral offers and counter offers.
(when seller offers a price and the buyer makes an initial responds the offer is formed)