Company dun want to pay me, can?
-
Originally posted by alwaysdisturbed:
its TS words against the coy's words. think about it, as a judge, its difficult to side unless the evidence are consistent with one side's words, such as the use of recording equipment. to prevent making any wrong decisions, i think judges will omit these out of the equation.
haha, no need recording equipment
actually it's very simple, the court only has to look at the employment history of the company. if all the previous employees had gone for the course in exchange for blah blah, then the court will just take that as the standard practice
-
In this case, the important point would be what were the additional terms they added that you find acceptable. If the terms changed constitute internal policies eg. notice period 2 months instead of 1 month etc, it is within the company's right to do so. However, if the contract contravenes your personal rights or does not compensate you adequately for your work or contravenes any labour laws especially if it was for a clause that was especially crucial for you to take up the job, eg. they promised you full medical benefits because it was important to you but the new contract states they do not, then you may have a case.
A verbal contract is a legal contract. The onus is on you to prove that what was agreed in the verbal contract.
Its very hard to tell you how but if you seriously feel hard done by, you can try negotiating with them, check the Employment Act if you fall under the Act. The MOM is your last resort.
-
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
-
Originally posted by gasband:
In this case, the important point would be what were the additional terms they added that you find acceptable. If the terms changed constitute internal policies eg. notice period 2 months instead of 1 month etc, it is within the company's right to do so. However, if the contract contravenes your personal rights or does not compensate you adequately for your work or contravenes any labour laws especially if it was for a clause that was especially crucial for you to take up the job, eg. they promised you full medical benefits because it was important to you but the new contract states they do not, then you may have a case.
A verbal contract is a legal contract. The onus is on you to prove that what was agreed in the verbal contract.
Its very hard to tell you how but if you seriously feel hard done by, you can try negotiating with them, check the Employment Act if you fall under the Act. The MOM is your last resort.
no offence meant gasband, but the 'additional terms' are irrelevant, u are approaching the issue from the wrong angle
the 'additional terms' are merely a form of negotiation, no matter how unreasonable it wil not affect the outcome. the main issue is who breached the 'study contract'? unless TS gives more info, there's no way to tell
-
Originally posted by 00king00:
no offence meant gasband, but the 'additional terms' are irrelevant, u are approaching the issue from the wrong angle
the 'additional terms' are merely a form of negotiation, no matter how unreasonable it wil not affect the outcome. the main issue is who breached the 'study contract'? unless TS gives more info, there's no way to tell
That is why I do not want to sound too sure. It all depends on what the terms in question are. It is not irrelevant. If the company inserted terms that contravene the Employment Act, would the contract be still valid? I do not think so. The study contract is not the cause of the employment contract. It is the result of the employment contract. If the employment contract is not valid, so will the study contract be.
-
It's best to call up MOM or WDA to find out more. Recently, there is this programme called ' SPUR ' ( may have been a long time , i forget liao ) , it is a programme about upgrading and etc. Govt and company will help you to pay for the course fee. Basically , it works like this , if you have completed 3 months of your course , Govt will pay your firm 20% of the course fee , if you have completed the course , the govt will pay the remaining 80% course fee back to your company.
-
Originally posted by gasband:
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 signature3) 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
-
Originally posted by 00king00:
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 signature3) 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
Alrighty, thanks
-
Originally posted by 00king00:
haha, no need recording equipment
actually it's very simple, the court only has to look at the employment history of the company. if all the previous employees had gone for the course in exchange for blah blah, then the court will just take that as the standard practice
so there's still something thats black and white afterall. -
Mooting here also no use la
-
What happen to common sense in the world?
It seems very obvious that the TS should pay back the course fee. Common sense no? The company retain the salary as compensation of the course fee, also make sense.
Want to play punk, want salary don't want pay back course fee, where is the logic in this?
-
TS does not have a case to keep the $4 k, though TS has spent it for paying the
course fee. However, TS has a case to be paid the salary by the company.
(1) TS has accepted the $4 k and started the course.
TS can refuse to sign the contract as TS claims that the terms and conditons
are not acceptable to TS. But TS is still legally bind to return the $4 k.
As TS has no legal ground for keeping the $4 k, though TS has spent it on
paying for the course fee.
(2) The company has no legal ground to keep TS's salary. As the salary is for the
work performed by TS for the company for the month.
(3) Hence, TS has to pay back the $4 k to the company and the company has to
pay TS's salary.
-
Originally posted by Master -_-:
Mooting here also no use la
lol, not mooting la, just correcting some misconceptions -
Originally posted by Lee012lee:
TS does not have a case to keep the $4 k, though TS has spent it for paying the
course fee. However, TS has a case to be paid the salary by the company.
(1) TS has accepted the $4 k and started the course.
TS can refuse to sign the contract as TS claims that the terms and conditons
are not acceptable to TS. But TS is still legally bind to return the $4 k.
As TS has no legal ground for keeping the $4 k, though TS has spent it on
paying for the course fee.
(2) The company has no legal ground to keep TS's salary. As the salary is for the
work performed by TS for the company for the month.
(3) Hence, TS has to pay back the $4 k to the company and the company has to
pay TS's salary.
Hi Lee, u are kinda going round in a circle, u are merely asserting, without any legal arguments, WHY he is legally bound to return the 4k
like i said before, it works both ways, it will depend on the facts to see if he needs to return the 4k, and TS has not provided enough.
termination of contract merely relieves both parties from further performance, it does not mean that the contract is rolled back ab initio, hence by default the $$ does not need to be returned
i guess u are trying to advance an restitution / unjust enrichment argument (sry if i'm getting too technical), but such arguments are usually the last resort because they hardly succeed
-
TS has rescind on the contract unilaterally.
TS cannot cite non-performance. Instead, it is the case of refuse performance.
In addition, the $4 k is not the deposit but the consideration of the contract.
-
Originally posted by Lee012lee:
TS has rescind on the contract unilaterally.
TS cannot cite non-performance. Instead, it is the case of refuse performance.
In addition, the $4 k is not the deposit but the consideration of the contract.
1) u don't 'rescind' a contract unilaterally, recission is a remedy for misrepresentation, pls don't confuse the term with termination or breach
2) 'refusal to perfom' is basically a subset of 'non performance', so what is yr pt?
In any case, 'non-performance' is an irrelevant issue, the pertinent issue is which party renunciated the contract first?
3) the $4 k has got nothing to do with consideration. You only look at consideration during the formation of the contract, but once both parties have concluded contract and embarked on performance, consideration is irrelevant.
just some learning pts
-
Originally posted by 00king00:
1) u don't 'rescind' a contract unilaterally, recission is a remedy for misrepresentation, pls don't confuse the term with termination or breach
2) 'refusal to perfom' is basically a subset of 'non performance', so what is yr pt?
In any case, 'non-performance' is an irrelevant issue, the pertinent issue is which party renunciated the contract first?
3) the $4 k has got nothing to do with consideration. You only look at consideration during the formation of the contract, but once both parties have concluded contract and embarked on performance, consideration is irrelevant.
just some learning pts
Any reasonable judge will throw the case out straight away, after learning about the 4k that was paid for TS. They can trace the money back to the company, and TS will have to explain why the fuck the company paid for TS. Than the judge will consider all sides and fuck who ever brought the case to court.
Maybe in US will the lack of common sense work. In Singapore, nope.