Contract Law: Legal Entitlement to Employment Schemes

Running Head: CONTRACT LAW
CONTRACT LAW
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author Note

2CONTRACT LAW
Issue:
In his given scenario the issue that has been identified is whether Max has any legal entitlement
to access the employment scheme regarding the compensation.
Rule:
It is worth mentioning that the scenario as provided through the facts of given case study deals
with the legal and the validity of employment contracts. In this given scenario, it has been
provided that certain preliminary agreements had been made between the company and Max.
The company had made an offer to Max. It is worth mentioning that preliminary employment
contracts are generally binding upon the parties. It had been held in the case Masters v
Cameron (1954) 91 CLR 353, in case of preliminary employment contracts the terms of the
contract become the subject matter of the contract. However, it had been further held in the
aforementioned case that the terms of the contract can change if the subject matter of the contract
changes and such terms will be legally binding upon the parties. It has been further provided in
section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law, that no person should engage in misleading and
deceitful conduct or any conduct which is misleading and deceiving in nature. It is worth
mentioning that there are several other legislations in Australia which misleading and deceiving
conduct. It had been further held in the case ACCC v TPG Internet Pty Ltd Case Page that
the basic purpose of the section is to protect the interest of the consumers. It has been further
mentioned in section 20 of the Australian Consumer Law that an individual should not indulge or
engage in unconscionable conduct.
It has been provided in section 31 of the Australian Consumer Law that an individual engaged in
trade and commerce is not expected to engage in any activity or any work which might mislead

3CONTRACT LAW
another individual who is seeking employment in an organization. Therefore it is worth
mentioning in this regard that employers have the obligation to maintain all the offers. In the
notable case Coal Cliff Collieries v Sijehama (1991) 24 NSWLR the court held that employees
should have clarity about the commercial terms of employment and the court also held that there
must be presumption that the parties intend to be bound by the terms of the contract. The terms
unconscionable can be defined as an statement which is undesirable in nature which in turn
defies good conduct. It has can be stated in accordance with the provisions of Protected
Disclosures Act 2000 that any conduct or act must not be tolerated in the workplace.
Application:
Thus by analyzing the facts of the given case study, it becomes evident that Max had an
employment contract with the company. It has been provided that the company had assured max
that he would be entitled to get the employment schemes. It is further worth mentioning that the
rules and the legal provisions relating to verbal contracts is applicable in this given scenario.
Max had accepted the offer given to him by the advertising agency. Therefore it can be assumed
that the parties to the contract had the intention to be bound by the terms of the contract.
However it has been provided that after Max signed the contract he was told that he could access
the employment schemes after he served two years in the office. Therefore it can be inferred that
the nature of the offer presented to Max was deceptive in nature as per the provisions of section
18 of the ACL. Further it can be stated in accordance with the decision of the case Masters v
Cameron, that an offer which made by an employer constitutes the major subject matter of the
employment contract. Thus it can be inferred that the employer is required to perform the terms
of the offer as present in the offer. Further, as discussed before, it can be stated that employers
are prohibited to engage in any deceptive conduct which might affect an employee during the