Legal Issues in Employment Contract and Product Liability under Australian Law

Running Head: Law 1
Law

Law 2
Answer 1
Issue
Whether Shulee breach employment contract Knights Finance Ltd, and whether Knights Finance
Ltd holds any legal rights against the Shulee
Law
Restraint of trade clauses are defined as an attempt through which employer restrict the conduct
of the former employee at the time when employment relationship ended between the parties.
Post-employment restraints are considered as invalid and unenforceable conditions, unless it is
showed by the employer that these conditions are necessary for ensuring the protection of the
commercial interest. The burden lies on the employer in terms of reflecting that conditions are
necessary for protecting the commercial interest.
It is not possible for the employers to use the restraint clause in terms of protecting themselves
against the normal procedures of the competition. Usually, wide restrictions related to the
competition does not consider as the valid and reasonable conditions. These clauses generally
restrict the employees from working under other competitors at the time when employees are
terminated (Kavanagh, 2017].
Restraint conditions are not accepted, and the Courts will consider it valid only if such terms are
reasonable in nature. In case law Buckley v Tutty (1971) 125 CLR 353 at 380, high Court of the
Australia stated those restraint conditions which were not reasonable was unenforceable because
these conditions were contrary to the public welfare. Court further stated that these conditions
unreasonable prevented the employees from earning the living from any lawful way which they
choose (Gotocourt, n.d.].
Application
In the present case, Shulee is employed at the Knights Finance Ltd., a financial services and
accounting firm in Melbourne. Contract signed by Shulee in this case contain the restrictions that
Shulee cannot be employed with the competitors of Knights Finance Ltd., for the period of 4
years. Additionally, contract stated that Shulee will participate in the other restricted activities
with their competitors.
In this case, restrictions in the contract are considered as the Post-employment restraints, and as
per the law, Post-employment restraints are considered as invalid and unenforceable conditions,
unless it is showed by the employer that these conditions are necessary for ensuring the
protection of the commercial interest.
Facts of this case are similar to the case of Victoria Supreme Court. In the year 2012, Victoria
Supreme Court gives their decision in case law Wallis Nominees (Computing) Pty Ltd v Pickett

Law 3
[2012] VSC 82. In this case, Pickett was employed as IT consultant, and he had been working
particularly with one of the main client of the employer for the period of 12 months. After some
time employee took the position with that client. Restraint clause in the agreement imposes
restriction on the employee to provide his services to the former clients of the organization.
Court stated in this, that restriction clause was not valid and cannot be enforced.
In this case also, Post-employment restrictions are invalid as these restrictions are used by
employer protecting themselves against the normal procedures of the competition. Therefore,
these clauses are not valid and cannot be enforced.
Conclusion
Restrictions are not valid, and Shulee can continue her employment with the competitors.
Answer 2
Issue
Whether ACL provides any defenses for the Mark’n’Mark Pit Masters Ltd in context of the
safety defect of the BBQ
Law
Australian Consumer law states that product possess the safety defect if it fails to meet the safety
level which is generally expected by the public. Expected level of the safety changed from
situation to situation (ICLG, 2016]. Section 9 of the ACL defines the meaning of the safety
defect and as per this section, in case goods fail to meet the expected level of the safety then it is
considered that goods have safety defect.
Ultimately Court holds the right to take action in context of deciding whether goods have safety
defect or not. Section 138-142 of the ACL defines the actions which can be taken by the
consumer of the product against the manufacturer-
Section 138 defines the liability of the manufacturer in terms of defective goods which cause loss
to the injured individual.
Section 139 defines the liability of the manufacturer in terms of defective goods which cause
injury to the person who is other than the injured individual.
Section 140 defines the liability of the manufacturer in terms of defective goods which cause loss
to the other goods.
Section 141 defines the liability of the manufacturer in terms of defective goods which cause
damage to the land, buildings or fixtures.