Legal Right to Access Employment Scheme: Business Law Case Study

Running head: BUSINESS LAW
BUSINES LAW
Name of the student:
Name of the university:
Author note

1
BUSINESS LAW
Table of Contents
Issue:..........................................................................................................................................2
Rule:...........................................................................................................................................2
Application:................................................................................................................................4
Conclusion:................................................................................................................................6
Reference:..................................................................................................................................7

2
BUSINESS LAW
Issue:
The main issue of the case is to determine whether Max has any legal right to
access in the employment scheme regarding the compensation or not.
Rule:
The subject matter of the case is based on the employment contract and validity of
the same. Considering the case study, it has been observed that certain preliminary
agreements made in between Max and the company, where the company has made certain
offer to Max. According to the general rule of employment contract, preliminary contracts are
binding in nature. According to Masters v Cameron (1954) 91 CLR 353, in any preliminary
agreement, those terms upon that the subject matter of the contract is based on, known as
subject to contract. According to the case, when the subject matter of a contract can change
the nature and character of the contract, the terms become legally binding. There are certain
legislations present in Australia against the misleading conduct of the parties. According to
section 18 of Australian Consumer Law, no person is allowed to make any comment that is
misleading in nature. Further, he should not engage in any commerce, which is deceptive in
nature. The application of the section has been observed in Australian Competition and
Consumer Commission v TPG Internet Pty Ltd [2013] HCA 54 that the main aim of the
section is to protect the interest of the consumer. In addition to this, it has been mentioned in
section 20 of the Australian Consumer Law that an individual should not engage him in an
unconscionable conduct. The term unconscionable means an unreasonable statement that
defies the good conscience. Such behaviour has been prohibited by section 21 of the
Australian Consumer Law. According to the Protected Disclosures Act 2000, unfair act
should not be conducted or tolerated in a workplace. Further, it has been stated under section
31 of the Act, it is not expected that an individual engaged in any work by which certain offer