The court will most likely upheld the employee manual for terminating employees for unsatisfactory performance. The employee manual will be an implied contract and Dillon v. Champion Jogbra, Inc. will support his claim. Dillon v. Champion Jogbra, Inc. the court rule in favor of Champion Jogbra, Inc. because the company put a clause in the employee manual stating: “They do not constitute part of an employment contract, nor are they intended to make any commitment to any employee concerning how individual employment action can, should, or will be
Since the company excludes liability for manufacturer defects to the product and prejudiced to consumer rights to refund or even replace the product whereupon, If a consumer believes that this term of the contract being an unfair term he can complain to the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) or to one of several consumer-related organizations that can act against unfair consumer contracts. Such a complaint may lead to court action. As an analysis for the reasonableness in the light of UCTA 1977, the company has to meet the following requirements: The contract / notice must not include terms which to exclude or restrict liability for breach of contract, providing an inadequate service, or providing goods that have been misdescribed, are not of satisfactory quality or are not fit for their purpose. This is the case unless such a term is reasonable, although exceptions exist, for example when
If an employer is presumably “on notice” that an employee displays episodes of violence and does nothing, or very little, for a protracted period of time and the employee ultimately engages in a violent act resulting in physical harm and emotional distress, can the injured worker bring a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress against the employer? The answer appears to be a qualified
57 Am. Jur. 2d Negligence § 798 (2014) Contributory negligence is defined as the injured party that can be partly responsible for the part they played in the incident. This means that the injured person should not recover damages when it appeared that the incident could have been avoided” but for” the plaintiff’s behavior. The plaintiff should not ask for others to exercise more care than he would from himself.
An employer is not liable for the torts of an independent contractor, but he will be responsible where the contractor's negligence produces a breach of the employer's primary duty Every employer has a common law duty to provide a safe workplace, safe equipment and a safe system of work for employee in order to avoid injury to employee in all area of their employment, Connolly v. Dundalk UDC (1990). The Common law duties to take reasonable steps to provide a safe place of work for employees by employers are such that they can not be delegated to independent contactors so as to avoid primary liability been transferred on employer, and to make sure that their duties are carried out efficiently, Heeney v. Dublin
The most common example of vicarious liability is the liability of an employer for the torts of his employees committed in the course of employment. It is not necessary in such circumstances for the employer to have breached any duty that was owed to the injured party, and therefore it operates as strict or no-fault liability. It is possible that the injured party could be either an employee or a stranger, and the employer can be held vicariously liable in both situations. The most important element to establishing a case for vicarious liability is that the wrongdoer be acting as a servant or employee, and that the wrong done be connected to the employee’s course of employment. Vicarious liability can only be imposed if it is proved that the employee was acting “in the course of employment.” This criteria is essential, and requires a clear connection between the employment duties and the employee’s acts complained of.
There are different ways in which contract of agency can be terminated 1)Act of parties 2)Operation of law 3)By agreement. Under act of parties there can be few scenario's one is revocation by principal in which the principal no longer wants the agent to work or act for his business or premises this situation can be handled by giving a notice to an agent and the notice should also be presented to the third party. Second is renunciation by agent in which the agent no longer wishes to work for the principal and he can stop working by giving a notice. If the agent wishes to leave before the expiration of the contract compensation must be provided to the principal for breaking the clause in an agreement. Agreement is where both the parties agent and the
If it can be proven that it was the employee’s own negligence that contributed to the cause of the accident, then the employee would not be entitled to any recovery from the employer. Voluntary assumption of risk was the second defence that the courts accepted to reject an employer liability. The doctrine provided that “if employees were aware or ought to have been aware of the hazards present in the workplace, then they were deemed to have assumed those risks as conditions of their employment and could not sue their employer for damages in the event that an injury was subsequently caused by those hazards.” (Tucker, 2002). The fellow-servant doctrine, is the third defence accepted in the courts, it held that “an employee could not recover damages from his employer where the accident has been, at least in part, caused by the action of a fellow worker, can be viewed as an extension of the voluntary assumption of risk doctrine.” (Tucker, 2002). If an employee was injured by the action of one of their coworkers, then the liability would not fall on the employer.
If an employer fails to meet its duty to conduct an adequate background check and hires an unfit employee who uses his or her position to inflict harm on others, that employer may be liable for negligent hiring. Here in this case, the delivery company hired these deliverers, one of whom had pled guilty to a charge of fourth degree burglary with an intention to commit theft from a dwelling. This is clearly a case of negligent hiring without a background check. Also liability for negligent hiring is limited to situations in which an unfit employee harmed others while on the employer’s premises or while using the employer’s property. In this case, delivering a new washing machine to the home of a customer indicates that the theft was conducted in the working hours and on the employer’s premises.
Thus they could not revoke their offer as stated in the rules of exemption clause in the tender. The bid of Valley Homes was considered as the lowest; hence they had the obligation to perform the work under the terms of the original contract. In case Valley homes had refused to finish their obligations it would lead them towards the breach of contract. In this situation Ace Minerals could claim their damages, which would be equal to the loss encountered by them to accept the next lowest bidder. Conclusion: We can say that, Valley home is more likely to loose the case against Ace Minerals if we put together all the arguments in the above analysis.