Without sounding too sure, you may have a case, Just like in
Business Law, we have the principle that any contract would be null
if the product we sell does not fulfil its basic function or was
not what was originally agreed.
If I pay $80K for a red car, and what was delivered is a Black
Car, basically the contract is basically nulled unless both parties
can come to a compromise or it was already stated in the contract
that colors may vary and the buyer has agreed to that term.
Of course, Business Law is different from Employment Law but I
guess if you think you have a case, go fight it. Dun let the
company get away with it if they are wrong. For them to give you a
contract after only 6 months, that alone could be a point of
contention already because you can argue that you would only sign a
contract if the terms are acceptable to you and the contract should
be signed in a reasonable time. It is like me asking my customer to
pay money first and then after 6 months then I deliver goods not
fitting their requirements.
The key thing I feel here is that:
1. You went for the course.
2. It is a result of you agreeing to the contract
3. which was a result of you agreeing to all terms and
conditions verbally discussed
Thus, if the terms and conditions are not abided by the company,
the contract is effectively null.
Again, I am not saying this is definitely the case cos the terms
you mentioned maybe some small issues....I am no lawyer anyway,
just pointing out what are the possibilities
Hi gasband, just some corrections and learning points
ya
1) courts are generally very reluctant to 'null' a contract as
it disturb the sanctity of the contract law. Looking at law in
general, 'null' contracts are the exception rather than the
norm.
whether as a lawyer or as a businessman, it would make very
little commercial sense to 'null' contracts'. I won't go into the
technical terms, but just take note that 'null' contracts should
never be the first course of action unless absolutely necessary.
(breach does not equal 'null')
2) TS had already accepted the offer by attending the course,
therefore he is already in the contract. the 'contract' 6 mths
later is strictly speaking not a contract at all, that's why i day
it's not relevant to the case at all. you must get away from the
fixated view that a contract is only concluded in writing and by
signature
3) The employment contract is distinct from the 'study'
contract, they must be separated. what happens with the 'study'
contract should not affect the employment contract.
even if unreasonable terms are inserted, then ONLY that
particular term is void, the rest of the contract will be intact,
it will not become null
