MLC101

Running head: MLC101
MLC101
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

MLC1011
Scenario 1
Issue
The primary issue in the given case law is whether Pru has violated her contract of
employment and her contract of shareholding with the IT services company, Criss Cross
Computer Systems Ltd. (CCCS).
Rules
The rule in the case of Southern Cross Computer Systems Pty Ltd v Palmer (No 2) [2017]
as provided by the Supreme Court of Victoria, states that a restraint period that is approximately
for four years, levied on the employee, that is the IT specialist, is rational and sensible. In this
case, the restraints clause was mentioned in the agreement of sale that the employee, that is the
IT specialist, agreed to make with the IT Company.
A rule is provided in a very recent case of the state of Victoria of the nation of Australia.
In the case of Freedom Finance Accounting Pty Ltd v Goldstein [2017], the Supreme Court of
the State of Victoria demonstrated the significance of drafting clear and concise clauses in
relation to restraints of trade in the cases of the commercial and business agreements. In this case
it was stated that a restraint clause shall be accepted in a business agreement by the courts if such
restraint is logical and rational and such restraint is in the best interests of the organization and
the interests of the parties to the agreement and the populace in general.
Application
By applying the rule as provide in the case of Southern Cross Computer Systems Pty Ltd
v Palmer (No 2) [2017], in the given case law, it might be stated that when Pru entered into a
contract with another IT organization named, Jump Systems Ltd., located in Darwin, a northern

MLC1012
city of the nation of Australia, she violated her contract with Criss Cross Computer Systems Ltd.
(CCCS). Pru violated the provision of the clause of restraint in the contract which clearly stated
that she would not be able to enter into an agreement or a contract with any other organization
that falls in the category of the ‘restricted business’. Therefore, Pru violated her contract of
employment and her contract of shareholding with Criss Cross Computer Systems Ltd. (CCCS).
The rule provided in the case Freedom Finance Accounting Pty Ltd v Goldstein [2017]
shall be applied. In this case significance of making a pure, strong and brief restraint clause in an
agreement was explained. Hence, applying this rule in the given case law, it might be stated that
the clause of restraint in the given case was very precise and unambiguous and could be
understand by a common person with s sense of rationality and reasonableness. Therefore, Pru,
even after being aware about the restraint clause, entered into another agreement with another IT
organization within the category of ‘restricted businesses, causing the violation of the contract on
her part.
Conclusion
In conclusion it might be said that Pru, the IT specialist and the employee of Criss Cross
Computer Systems Ltd. (CCCS), an IT organization, violated her contract of employment and
shareholding with the IT organization.
Scenario 2
Issue
The chief issue in the given case law is that whether the exclusion or limiting clause as
provided in the contract of insurance between Constructs Ltd,. the construction company, and