Employment Law and Contracts - Assignment Example

? Business Law Business Law PART A: EMPLOYMENT LAW AND CONTRACTS Question one: Employment agreement An employment agreement stipulates the relation between the employee and the employer in a work environment; when the employer agrees with all the terms in the agreement form, he or she will be considered for a job (Gerbic & Miller, 2010). In other words, an employment agreement can be referred to as a contract. In this case, the employment agreement will be between Chookie Chow Ltd and the employees. The employment agreement should stipulate the following points. An agreement is herein made between the employer, Chookie Chow Ltd, and the employees (name)……………………………….. All the employees will be engaged on a casual basis and this will be variable depending on the need to recruit more employees. As an employee of the firm, you will be charged with the duty of providing guidance to the customers of the business within the Hunua ranges and its environs; this at times may extend to outside the geographical region of the area as need may be. As said in the above article, the area of duties will be variable at times and the performance of extra duties will be paid for by the company. As an employee of Chookie Chow Ltd, you will be expected to work for six days a week, which will also be done on a rotational basis; depending on the choice of day by the employees, this must include all the days in a week. A day will have 10 working hours, starting at 8 am. This means that all employees are to work for 56 hours a week. The employees will be paid a total of $45,136 annually on a weekly basis unless otherwise communicated three months prior to the effective date in which changes will be made. If an employee is engaged in duties assigned by the company during public holidays, the employee (s) will be paid the equivalent of compensation for normal working days of the company. In the event that changes are made by the company regarding the terms of engagement of the employer, the employer and the employee will both meet and achieve consensus regarding the changes envisaged. The redundancy provisions will be activated in the event that the employees deliberately avoid acceptance of another contract by another employee or he or she is not offered any position by another employer. The employees are not allowed to make any public communications on behalf of the company unless it is authorized by the company. The employees will also be subjected to disciplinary sanctions appropriately regarding their unlawful behavior while operating in or on behalf of the company. As an employee of the Chookie Chow Ltd, you will be granted by the company a full time health insurance for the period you are lawfully engaged by the company. The contract can be terminated if the contract period expires or if the employee has grossly violated the principle cardinal rules in the company and this constitutes a criminal or civil offence. I……………………………… have personally read and understood unconditionally the content of this contract in the presence of …………………………………. And hereby append my signature to warrant acceptance of the agreement. Question Two: Prepare a Covering Letter To Managing director, Chookie Chow Ltd, Charlie Totara, Dear Sir, RE: EMPLOYEMENT AGREEMENT FOR CASUAL WORKERS This is following the firm’s decision to increase its operation in the Hunua ranges during this summer in a bid to advance our services in the relevant time. I also want this letter to capture your notice that people will be hired as casual employees. This should be construed that the employment will have to take place when there is absolute need for the employees. The dismissal of the casual employees will also be done without any notice as circumstances will dictate. Casual employees will also not be entitled to some of the privileges and terms that are unique for permanent employees (Koffman & Macdonald, 2007). It should also attract your attention to the fact that the payment and remuneration for such employees will also be made on a weekly basis opposed to the monthly basis as has been the norm with the permanent employees. In regard to the above subject, an agreement (contract) has been made regarding the engagement of such move and all the important facets of the agreement are encapsulated in the agreement. The agreement clearly states the nature of engagement of the workers and the extent of their duties; this has been done to insulate the firm from any judicial case that may arise if an assumption is made and it is not clearly stipulated (Mallor, 2012). The communication of the agreement has met all the legal considerations and no loophole has been left to chance. I, therefore, want to assure you that the firm can confidently use it for the purpose intended without future negative legal impact. All the important facets regarding the employees have been considered unequivocally, and it is legally enforceable in the case of legal contention. A copy of the agreement is attached herein for your perusal and in case of any concern your communication will be highly welcomed for any clarity regarding the agreement. The company intends to utilize the agreement as soon as possible for the purpose of recruiting. Your additional input and adjustment regarding this agreement will be highly welcomed. Communication based on satisfaction will also be much appreciated. Thanks in advance, Yours Faithfully PART B: APPLYING THE LAW OF CONTRACT Question One: Intention to Create Legal Relations Issue. In the above scenario, the issue is: was the agreement between Charlie and the son, Dufus, valid and enforceable? Law. In contract law, the offer remains the most critical and important part of a contract; the offer is normally given by the offeror to the offeree and, in the simplest terms, it states: “Here is the terms-consent and we have a contract”. This does not mean that any promise is an offer; the question then is how we can distinguish between a mere promise and an offer. An offer in court is considered at three levles to be validated. An offer must show unequivocally three cardinal points: present intent (to ensure that the offeror is not advancing any joke and is ready to gainfully contract the offeree as soon as the offeree accepts the offer), the definiteness of the offer, and the communication of the offeree (Gerbic, and Miller, 2010). In the offer given by Charlie, it unfortunately did not satisfy the criterion of present intent; the communication in this case was also ambiguous in the sense that it was not in writing and thus not enforceable in law. For a contract to be made, the offeree must accept the offer in writing; otherwise it remains invalid and can not be regarded by law. The case scenario at this point is the Macdonald and Meram; Meram was informed by a friend to attend a presentation to be graced by Macdonald, who is a billionaire (Gerbic & Miller, 2010). During this presentation, Macdonald was to promote his book, and at the beginning of the meeting he stated that those in the meeting should drop their cards in a container that was moving around; if a person was to be in the meeting till the end, he would pick a card at random, and whoever’s card was picked, the person whose name appeared on the card would be given $1,000,000 as he/she would be leaving the presentation (Gerbic & Miller, 2010). At the end of the meeting, Macdonald picked Miriam’s card and Miriam believed she would walk a way with the $1,000,000. To her disappointment, she was only given $100 for the first 100 years and Macdonald told her that, as for the rest, she would be given $1 every year she attends the presentation for the next one million years; Macdonald laughed off and ended the presentation. Meram was aggrieved and filed a suit against Macdonald for not honoring the offer. In the ruling, the judge found Macdonald not bound by any law to honor the terms of the offer as it was not valid and had a lot of lacuna. The court also found it unreasonable for Meram to have believed the deal advanced by Macdonald. The case is similar to this of Charlie and the son. Application. The case of Charlie and the son is invalid and there is no legal implication if Charlie declines to honor the agreement. The agreement was based on goodwill and was not backed by the legal position, so he is not bound to honor the agreement. Law in the case of a contract is enforceable only if the offer and acceptance are done in a way that is legally obliging; unfortunately, this is not so in the case scenario. Conclusion. The abovementioned information clearly shows that there is no legal binding in the agreement between Charlie and the son, and thus Charlie will suffer no legal conclusion should the son file a suit against him. Before a contract is concluded, one should mind the enforceability of the agreement. In this case it is lacking. Question Two: Offer and Acceptance As stated above, an offer is the most critical and important part of a contract – it states the terms and conditions for the offeree to accept or reject the offer (Forde & Forde, 1997). In definition, an offer can be said to be the initial step in a contract formation that stipulates the provisions to the offeree (Mallor, 2012). The offeree will keenly verify and conceptualize the contents of the agreement and opt to reject or accept the offer. If the offeree finds the content favorable then he/she will accept offer. Acceptance can be defined as yielding to the terms of the engagement as advanced by the offeror (Forde & Forde, 1997). Once the acceptance is made, a contract is said to have been entered and can take effect. In light of the above explanation, my reply letter to Charlie will read as follows. RE: CLARIFICATION ON THE CONTENT OF THE CONTRACT In full view of the content of your communication regarding whether or not there is a contract between your and the milk powder supplier, I wish to state the following legal observation accompanying your engagement with the supplier. Considering the content and the level of communication between you and the supplier, it is regrettable that still there is no valid and legal contact reached between you. That in case you proceed to transact with the supplier under the current level of communication, you risk losing in the sense that the supplier may supply you with non premium powder contrary to your expectation and will triumph in the case of a legal suit against him. This is due to the fact that you did not independently inquire from the supplier the type of powder he deals in before making informed choice; instead, you presupposed that he deals in premium powder and warranted supply. The supplier can and will argue in case of a wrong supply that you regarded these supplies as premium without the correct information and, therefore, he is not liable for any changes in them. In this regard, I advice that you seek an independent reply from the supplier ascertaining the type of powder he deals in before making purchase of the powder, as this will make the contract sound and enforceable in case of retract by any of the parties. Yours Faithfully Question 2 (b) RE: ENFORCEABLE CONTRACT IN COMMERCIAL LAW After a careful consideration of the communication between you as the offeree and Cedric as the offeror and that to the best of your knowledge it is the position I will unequivocally direct that you file a suit against Cedric for not honoring the agreement. This is due to the fact that Cedric as the offeror had the responsibility of dictating time, place, and method of acceptance to you as the offeree (Forde & Forde, 1997). Failure by him to have indicated this reasonably makes it convenient to construe that he was conscious that the communication of acceptance could be made by any other form within a reasonable time not to engage and seal a contract with another party (Hubbard, Thomas, & Varnham, 2010). Given your prompt acceptance within some reasonable time and with the conditional clause of considering the horse yours and if you do not hear from him on the specified date, it is reasonable to believe that he read the mail and his silence was the acceptance of the offer, and he ought to have designated the horse for you (Hubbard, Thomas, & Varnham, 2010). Even in the filing of the suit against the Cedric you should bear in mind that silence in law is not considered as acceptance unless it is subjective to the extent that it imposes onto either party a duty to respond otherwise as in the case of your communication. Cedric is, therefore, considered by law to have contradicted the requirements of a contract and is liable. Yours Faithfully Question Three: Consideration Unwanted Hedge Trimming The issue here is payment of the wages advanced by the arborist, whether his payment of the hedge trimming is lawful or not given Charlie did not approve it in the first instance. Lawfully consideration is defined as the legal value that is duly bargained for and subsequently given for an act or a promise. In this case, the legal value is not actually enforceable to Charlie given that it is not hinged in consideration. It is now dependent on the Charlie’s goodwill to give the arborist any amount he thinks is commensurate to the work. This is a similar case to that of Thorne v. Deas (Hubbard, Thomas, & Varnham, 2010). Thorne and Co were involved in a partnership of sailing ships by the name Nymph and promised their co-workers that they will insure the ship for the next scheduled voyage (Thorne and Co did not honor this promise); when the ship was lost in the sea, the co-workers filed a suit against Thorne and Co, but the judge found them not guilty since their promise was not supported by consideration and, therefore, was not enforceable in law (Hubbard, Thomas, & Varnham, 2010). The arborist claim is not applicable because there was no consideration in the first instance; therefore, the arborist can not successfully pursue a suit against Charlie. And in conclusion, there is not legal binding for Charlie to yield to the demands of the arborist. Question Four: Capacity Josh’s Car The issue is whether it is viable for Charlie to enter into a legal deal such as that of loan with Josh given that Josh’s age has not qualified him for such arrangement. The law regarding this states unequivocally that when one is below the age of 18, he/she can not be engaged into a legal agreement, since in such situations, the case may not be legally enforceable due to the breach of age. Therefore, in the case that Charlie enters into a loan agreement with Josh and it turns out not to be honored, then Charlie can not successfully make Kosh follow the law. Based on the legal complications that can envisaged, it is not advisable for Charlie to enter into a loan deal with Josh even if he is a quite promising person. In the case of default, Charlie will not have the legal backing to enforce any law on Josh given his age. Due to this, Charlie should not enter into such legal dealings with Josh. In conclusion, Charlie should not make the mistake of entering into an agreement with Josh on the issue of the loan. It may only survive on the goodwill of Josh to honor the agreement as he is not bound by any enforceable law. Question Five: Contractual Misrepresentation Buying a House for Chookie Chow Staff The issue here is whether Charlie has a legal right to reverse the contract between him and James given that the sewerage construction was not to be performed in the buildings within the next six months as stipulated in the agreement. In law, before a contract is concluded, the content of the law must be fully understood and nothing should be left to chance or goodwill. If such a case happens, then it will not be lawfully enforceable. In law, there is no contract between Charlie and James since the issue of the sewerage upgrade did not feature in the contract. Since it did not feature, it can not be lawfully enforceable. The law clearly requires that all the terms of the agreement are featured in the contracts so that there can be sufficient inferences made; otherwise, the contract proves null and void in the face of the law. In conclusion, Charlie will face a losing case in the event he files a suit against James. The reference point will be the initial contracts made. References Gerbic, P., & Miller, L. (2010). Understanding commercial law (7th ed.). Wellington: LexisNexis. Hubbard, J., Thomas, C., & Varnham, S. (2010). Principles of law for New Zealand business students (4th ed.). Auckland: Pearson. Mallor, J. P. (2012). Business law: the ethical, global, and e-commerce environment (15th Ed.). McGraw-Hill. Forde, M., & Forde, M. (1997). Commercial law (2nd ed.). Dublin: Butterworths. Koffman, L., & Macdonald, E. (2007). The law of contract (6th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Read More