Business Law Assignment: Contract & Employment Law
Task: Harry, Liam and Zayn’s winery One Direction is going very well. Their wines are popular. They have decided they should offer a home delivery service and have implemented it as part of their business. A number of issues have arisen since they had offered home deliveries.
QUESTION 1 – CONTRACT LAW
They decided they needed to get some special boxes that protect the wine more for delivery. Harry’s brother Mike has a printing shop. They give Mike all the details of what they require including that it must be suitable to carry bottles of a certain weight. Mike gives them two options, one for $8,000 and one for $4,000. They question Mike about the boxes for $4,000 and he says “not as good, but should be adequate for what you want”. They go ahead with the $4,000 quote and order the boxes.
When the boxes are delivered they were not of the same material and the material utilised is not strong enough to hold two or more bottles.
They want their money back.
Discussing contract law is there a statutory implied term regarding fitness for purpose and discuss any other way they may be able terminate the contract with Harry’s brother Mike?
QUESTION 2 - CONTRACT LAW
Mason was employed by One Direction in the cellar door. One Direction have dismissed him as they no longer need him given the home delivery is accounting for a lot of their business. After his dismissal by One Direction, he went to work for a rival wine company BTS about 1 km up the road. Mason’s contract with One Direction stated
‘within three years after the termination of his engagement and services with the company you will not be in the employment of any firm carrying on or engaged in the same or similar business within 50 km of One Direction cellar door”
Describe the relevant legal test and discuss whether the restraint is enforceable?
You must include at least one legal case in your answer.
QUESTION 3 - EMPLOYMENT LAW
One Direction has asked Watson and Mary to do the grape picking. Watson and Mary have their own grape picking business called Sherlock Vines. Watson and Mary own the trucks used for collecting the grapes. One Direction pays for the registration and petrol of the trucks.
In relation to the grape picking .
- Watson and Mary pick grapes only in good weather - One Direction accepts this
- One Direction requires them and pays for them to go to safety training.
- There is no set amount of grapes expected to be picked
- They are paid per tonne
- One Direction advises them what section to pick and what type of grapes to pick.
- They wear One Direction winery uniforms
- One time after 3 loads of poor quality grapes Zayn yells “I will take away your Sherlock uniform and give the work to better workers”
- Mary is hurt one day when she catches her foot on a vine, falls over and breaks her ankle. She cannot work for 2 months.
Is this a contract of employment or independent contractor arrangement?
QUESTION 4 - EMPLOYMENT LAW
William has been employed to pack the boxes with the wine for home delivery. He works in a back room in the warehouse and interacts with delivery drivers only. William loves to wear a t-shirt with offensive words written on them, he thinks it is funny. One day he comes to the work wearing a t-shirt that says “No way get f…ked, f..k off”
The partners are very offended by this and ask him to change into a One Direction top they have given him. William has had enough and tells them “no way f..k you, f..k off”
The One Direction partners terminate his employment.
Did One Direction have the right to tell William to change his t-shirt and did they have a right to terminate him? William wants to claim unfair dismissal.
Issues: Based on the case of business law assignment, it is identified that Harry’s brother Mike has a printing shop and Mike has given two opinions to Harry either to use the box of 8000 AUD or the consideration of box worth 4000 AUD. Furthermore, Mike has assured that the box of 4000 AUD would help to full fill objectives of Harry, Liam and Zayn. After that while boxes are reached, it is found that materials are not good and boxes have no capacity to hold two or more bottles. In this case of business law assignment, the first issue is whether there is a statutory implied term with respect to the fitness for purpose, and second issue is can the contract be terminated as per law?
Airlooms Holding Pty Ltd vs. Thales Australia Ltd (2011)
Based on this case, it is identified herein business law assignment that Airlooms Holding Pty Ltd had claimed a loss of profit against Thales Australia Limited. The appeal had been made to the local court but the court did not find any basis regarding the loss of profit. The reason is proper evidence could not be provided by Airlooms limited and considering implied terms of the contract, the judgement has been given (Airloom Holdings Pty Ltd v Thales Australia Ltd, 2020). In this case, the plaintiff could not get support from the court and the entire case has been defended. In this case, the loss of profit amount has not been expressed properly in the contract and it is assumed by the court that Airloom's claim is implied contract term.
Termination for Breach According to the Contract Law
It is the common rule of contract law is if the condition of the contract has not been fulfilled, that contract can be considered a breach. Hence, the termination of the contract can be easily made based on the allegation breach of contract (Poole, 2016).
Application of the Law
The above case law is applicable here as the implied term has been found in the contract. This is because Mike has partly said that boxes worth 4000 AUD were not good in terms of quality but it is good for managing activities of Harry. Hence, in this case, the allegation cannot be raised against Mike as he has no idea regarding the business activities of Harry. Hence, Harry cannot get the entire money back but the partial compensation they can avail from Mike. In this case of business law assignment, another thing has been identified that the contract can be terminated as a condition has not been fulfilled. The termination is applicable considering the issue that breach of contract has occurred between two parties.
Based on the above discussion, it has been identified that the compensation is needed to be provided to Harry as a result of the breach of contract and the contract can be terminated according to contract law.
Issue: After the dismissal of employment, Mason has contracted with BTS wine company for continuing his work. The analysis of the employment contract between Mason and One direction reveals that although Mason has been dismissed from the job, the rejoining in another company within the 50 Km area is not permissible. Hence, in this case, the issue is whether the restraint is enforceable or not.
Relevant Case Law
Concut Pty Ltd. vs. Worrell (2000)
The case of Concut Pty Ltd reveals that Worrell has been terminated from the job by the company without following agreement policies. Hence, in this case explained within the business law assignment, the Plaintiff had made an appeal to the court against Concut Pty Ltd. The court had provided a decision in favour of the plaintiff (Worrell) and from this case, the rule has been framed that violation of contract rules is a punishable offense. Hence, it is essential to investigate terms and conditions mentioned in the contract (Concut Pty Ltd v Worrell, 2020).
Application of the Law
The case law of Concut Pty Ltd outlined in the context of business law assignment can be applied in the case of Mason as the contract rules are violated by Mason and in this case, One Direction can appeal against Mason as the contract norms are completely violated by him. After the application of the case law it has been identified that violation of contract agreement is a punishable offense and the appellant might charge compensation against the issue (Eldridge, 2019). The contract agreement between Mason and One Direction depicts that within three years after the termination, Mason cannot join any same category company within 50 km Area.
Based on the above discussion, it can be stated that restraint is enforceable as the contract agreement has clearly mentioned terms and conditions. As Mason has violated rules, One Direction can adopt legal steps against his former employee.
Issue: Based on the case, it is identified that One Direction has asked Mary and Watson for doing grape-picking work. The case also reveals that Watson and Mary have their own grape picking business which is called Sherlock Vines. Zayn has stated that he would take away Sherlock uniform of both Mary and Watson as they have provided poor quality grapes. In this case, the key issue is whether it would be considered a contract for employment or independent contractor arrangement.
The Employment Law in Australia has come from the Fair Work Act 2009 which governs employment activities of the majority of Australian employees. Based on the Employment Law in Australia considered in the current scenario of business law assignment, independent contractors can run their own business effectively, and hence, they have the right to negotiate their own prices. The case also states that Mary and Watson have an independent business and hence, it is clear that they have the right to maintain their own business (Kavanagh and McRae, 2017). The contract of service and contract for service both are different matters according to the Employment Law of Australia. In this case, which is applicable that can be identified based on the detailed case analysis.
Application of the Law
The case of analysis of Mary and Watson reveals that the work for One Direction organization is an independent contractor arrangement. The reason is Mary and Watson have their own business and they are not working as an employee. They have made a contract to work for One Direction for a certain payment. Hence, in this case, contract for service can be considered and the overall case depicts that the contract agreement has been made between One Direction and Mary & Watson for providing service on a certain amount. Based on this discussion, the term contract for service according to the Employment Law has been applied.
The above discussion developed within the business law assignment says that Employment Law in Australia is really applicable in terms of Mary's activities. The reason is Mary and Watson is related to independent business activities. Hence, the contract for service is applicable based on Employment Law. Here, it can be concluded that the agreement is an independent contractor arrangement.
Issue: William has been employed for doing the home delivery work on behalf of One Direction. He liked to wear t-shirt with offensive words on them as it was a matter of joke to him. One day he had come for the home delivery wearing that type of t-shirt and partners had been offended by this incident. As a result partners' of One Direction have terminated the employment of William immediately. In this case of business law assignment, the key issue is whether William has the right to terminate the employment of William or not. The second issue is can William claim to the court according to the Employment Law in Australia against the employer?
In relation to the above case of business law assignment, the Unfair Dismissal law derived from the Fair Work Act 2009 is needed to be described properly. This is because the unfair dismissal law focuses on the termination of employees from the workplace with valid reasons. In this context, the term “misconduct” and “inadequate performance” are important to explain as based on these terms; subsequent effective steps are adopted in terms of employment termination (Employment Termination, 2020). The law has clearly stated that an employer has to provide evidence of more than one misconduct or inadequate performance to terminate an employee from the workplace. In order to defend the case illustrated in the business law assignment valid reason has to be shown in the court. According to the rules, valid reason means logical reasons that are defensible and related to employment.
Application of Law
Considering the above rules of the Fair Work Act 2009 and Employment Law in Australia mentioned in the business law assignment, it is clear that misconduct and inadequate performance both are needed to be proved subject to the proper evidence. Hence, in the case of William explored within the business law assignment, the Unfair Dismissal Law is applicable as William has violated norms of service. He has selected t-shirt with offended languages in the workplace and hence, the employer has the right to adopt step against him. According to the law, the employer needs to provide a warning in terms of inadequate performance. After that serious actions can be adopted against the employee regarding termination.
The above analysis done in this business law assignment reveals that One Direction has full right to say to change the t-shirt of William and the organization can terminate the employment after providing a warning. If a warning has not been given and directly termination is made, the employee, William has the right to claim against dismissal to the court.
Airloom Holdings Pty Ltd v Thales Australia Ltd, 2020. Html.Raw(Damages For Breach Of Contract In NSW - Corporate/Commercial Law - Australia).Mondaq.com. Available at: <https://www.mondaq.com/australia/CorporateCommercial-Law/183564/Damages-for-breach-of-contract-in-NSW> [Accessed 23 April 2020].
Concut Pty Ltd v Worrell, 2020. Concut Pty Ltd V Worrell (2000) 176 ALR 693 – Law Case Summaries. Lawcasesummaries.com. Available at: <https://lawcasesummaries.com/knowledge-base/concut-pty-ltd-v-worrell-2000-176-alr-693/> [Accessed 21 April 2020].
Eldridge, J., 2019. Contract Codification: Cautionary Lessons from Australia. Business Law Assignment Edinburgh Law Review, 23(2), pp.204-229.
Employment Termination, 2020. Html.Raw(Termination Of Employment In Australia: Best Practice Guide - Employment And HR - Australia). Mondaq.com. Available at: <https://www.mondaq.com/australia/employee-rights-labour-relations/257796/termination-of-employment-in-australia-best-practice-guide> [Accessed 23 April 2020].
Kavanagh, M. and McRae, E., 2017. Employment law: Protecting vulnerable workers amendment to fair work act. Governance Directions, 69(4), p.241.
Poole, J., 2016. Textbook on contract law. Oxford University Press.