Conflict of Interest and Principles of Global Convention

Scenario 1-
Kumar’s concerns and IT employment issues-
Issue- In the given case, Criss Cross Computer Systems Ltd. engaged in IT
services and consultancy sector in Werribee, hired Pru as an IT specialist. Pru has
20% of shares of the company and a contract agreement that she can join any
other similar firmfor years in Australia, after leaving her job from the present
company. Additionally, a separate agreement also stated that she can not
engage in Restrcited business for minimum 8 years.It also contains well defined
description of Restricted business.Now, Pru decided to sale her shared and wants
to join another IT firm in Darwin.
Rule-Restrictions is any contract usually intended to protect the employer.
However, employer can not stop any employee from other jobs untill your new
Job affects your old employer. Therefore, the given case
includesunreasonableterms. The unfair contracts terms mentioned in Pt 2-3 of
Australian consumer lawand Pt 2 Div 2 Subdiv BA of theAustraliansecurities and
Investemnt commission act 2001. The unfair Contract Terms Laws are also being
regulated by Part 2B of Fair Trading Act 1999(vic) which is now repealed
(Legislation.vic.gov.au, 2019). Also the regulation of unfair terms is governed by
Consumer Contract Regulations 1999(UK). Also schedule 2 , section 23-28 of the
Australian Consumer law defines unfair contract law with relevant
regulations(Classic.austlii.edu.au, 2019).
Argument- Under Australian Consumer law, only court has the power to
determine the fairness of any term in relevant contracts. However, various terms
that can be unfair in any contract are-
 that enables one part to avoid or limit their obligation but not the other.
 If only one party has the right to vary the provisions of terms.
 terms that penalises only one party for breaching the contract.
 Termsthat enable only one party to terminate the contract but not the
other.
The terms of contract in the given case regardingrestricting the actions of Pru in
context of employment in similar firms or selling the shares held by her leads to

biased obligation to Pru and only one party has the right to interprete the
contractual terms, which amounts to unfair terms.The Federal court of Australia
in
Brighton Australia Pty Ltd v Multiplex Constructions Pty Ltd [201
7
(Supremecourt.vic.gov.au, 2019)
], held that contract provisions imposing time
limitation for the commencement of any action can be misleading. Therefore, the
judgement upheld the enforceability of any provision that have such effect of
limitingthe action of consumer. However, these terms includes enforceability.
Also, in
Leahey v CSG Business Solutions (Aus) Pty Ltd [2017] FCA 1098(18
September 2017) (Lee J) (Jade.io, 2019), the court held that the breach with a
assured loss is less likely to be serious. Therefore, the assessment of loss in case
ofbreach of shareholdingcontract must be performed to evaluate the extent.
Conclusion- Therefore, in the given case, KUMAR’s concern about the breach of
contract by Pru needed the evaluation of loss occurred. Also the terms of
contract are creating “significant imbalance” in partiesrights and obligations. The
court has decided the fairness of the terms of contracts at several time
byassessing the reasonablemandate for securing the interests ofadvantageous
party. In the given case, Pru filed to serve her notice period which comes under
the fair terms of contracts and Pru has full obligations towards it. In case of
breach of shareholding contract, it accounts to unreasonable and unfair term of
contract withlack of serious loss to the Criss Cross computer systems Ltd.
References
Classic.austlii.edu.au. (2019).
COMPETITION AND CONSUMER ACT 2010 -
SCHEDULE 2 - TABLE OF CONTENTS. [online] Available at:
http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/caca2010265/toc-
sch2.html [Accessed 6 Sep. 2019].
Jade.io. (2019).
BarNet Jade - Find recent Australian legal decisions,
judgments, case summaries for legal professionals (Judgments And Decisions
Enhanced). [online] Available at:
https://jade.io/summary/mnc/2017/FCA/1098 [Accessed 6 Sep. 2019].

Legislation.vic.gov.au. (2019). [online] Available at:
http://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/Domino/Web_Notes/LDMS/PubStatbook.nsf/
edfb620cf7503d1aca256da4001b08af/
483E227C3EF9222FCA256E5B00213D8B/$FILE/99-016a.pdf [Accessed 6 Sep.
2019].
Supremecourt.vic.gov.au. (2019).
Brighton Construction Pty Ltd v Multiplex
Constructions Pty Ltd [2018] VSC 246 | The Supreme Court of Victoria.
[online] Available at:
https://www.supremecourt.vic.gov.au/court-decisions/judgments-and-
sentences/judgment-summaries/brighton-construction-pty-ltd-v [Accessed 6
Sep. 2019].