Business Law

RUNNING HEAD: BUSINESS LAW
Business Law
Name of the student
Name of the university
Author Note

1
BUSINESS LAW
Reply to Scenario 1:
(a)
Issue:
The primary concern regarding the provided cases is weather Jacky can be said as an employee
for an independent contractor Felix and Oberlisk.
The rule of law:
Under the provisions of the law of employment, importance is provided on the distinction
between an independent contractor and an employee so that the protection and the benefits will
be easily available identities so that it can be availed. There are several tractors that have been
considered by the court for distinguishing between them. The case study of Zuijs v Wirth Bros
Pty Ltd (1955)1 it has been observed that is there is a high control; any employee is considered
as the worker. The multi-factor test is applied here, which will determine whether employee can
be considered for falls in the category of an independent contractor or employee. If there was
working is fixed for an employee then that worker is considered as an employee of that particular
company. If any amount of tax is being deducted from the side of the employer then that worker
can be said as an employee of a particular company. If the employee or any worker is paid in
specified time then that worker is considered as an employee. When the equipment and tools are
provided from the side of the employer then that what is said to be an employee. But if any
worker is provided with any particular task then that worker can be said to be an independent
contractor.
1 Zuijs v Wirth Bros Pty Ltd (1955) 93 CLR 561

2
BUSINESS LAW
Apparent Authority:
If the third party is allowed by the principal in belief there is an authority of the agent to act
accordingly on behalf of the principal, it will be not fair by permitting the principal to avoid all
the responsibility for the action of the agent insisting that authorisation was not actually for the
agent acting on behalf of the principal.it has been acknowledged by the law about the unfairness
of the potential unfairness. This statement can be supported by the case-law of Tooth vs
Laws(1888)2.
Application:
In the provided scenario it has been observed that Jacky can easily work for few days like two or
three days and no fixed days for working was there in case of Jacky which can be considered as a
reason state him as an independent contractor. She used to receive her payment in every
fortnight, which explains clearly that she can be considered as an employee. It is seen that there
was no fixed salary for her and the amount of her salary depends on the number of days she
worked second day picks that she is an employee and not an independent contractor. She was not
liable for any deduction of tax from her employer which depicts that she can be considered as a
contractor who is independent according to the case study of Bree v Lupevo Pty Ltd
[2003]3which explains that any employee will be liable for claiming any deductions. As he was
working in office of Felix and Oberlisk and he was provided with a machine from the office
which again clears out that he was an employee and not an independent contractor as specified in
the case of Australian Telecommunications Commission v Hart4. Similarly it can be seen that
2 Tooth v Laws (1888) 9 LR (NSW) 154
3 Bree v Lupevo Pty Ltd [2003] EOC 93–267
4 Australian Telecommunications Commission v Hart (1982) 65 FLR 41