Workplace Law

This article discusses the legal issues related to pre-contractual negotiations and parole evidence rule in the context of workplace law. It also provides relevant case laws and references.

Running head: WORKPLACE LAW
Workplace Law
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1WORKPLACE LAW
Question 1:
Issue:
The issue is regarding the fact that whether the nature of the pre-contractual contractual
negotiation is binding upon the parties or not.
Rule:
From the very beginning, the rules regarding interviews and pre-contractual negotiations
are regulated by the provisions of Section 18(1) of Schedule 2 of the ACCA (Cth). It is
noteworthy to mention here that, according to the provisions of Section 18(1) of Schedule 2 of
the ACCA Act (Cth), it has prohibited misleading and deceptive conduct in trade. The example
of pre-contractual-negotiation has been well explained in the case of Barto v GPR management
Services Pte Ltd (1991) 105 ALR 339. This case is an example that how a misleading conducts
regarding trade practices can lead to misconduct. In this case, it was observed that, the employer
made representations t the employee during the tenure of employment and in such process
various negotiations took place in relation to the contract made prior to his employment.
It is worthwhile to refer here that, different business types of business are associated with
various forms of contracts (Wilkinson-Ryan & Hoffman, 2015). As a result of it, the parties in
contract relied upon the terms depicted in the written contract and does not consider the
circumstances associated with it. In the case of Noone, Director of Consumer Affairs Victoria v
Operation Smile (Australia) Inc & Ors [2012] VSCA 91, it was observed that, an appeal was
made by the Director of Consumer Affairs Victoria regarding the statements that has been stated
in the website concerning the treatment of cancer. The statements made by the respondents were
to mislead the general public.

2WORKPLACE LAW
It is worthwhile to mention the provisions of Section 18(1) of the Australian Consumer
Law (ACL). According to the provisions 18(1) of the ACL, misleading conduct in regard to trade
and commerce has been highly prohibited. In this context, mention can be made of the provisions
of Section 52. According to the provisions of Section 52, if any organization, during the course
of trade and commerce engages in any conduct which can mislead the contracting, then such act
should be strictly prohibited. In Stoelwinder v Southern Health Care Network [2000] FCA 444,
it was held by the Court that the employer has misrepresented the provisions f Section 52 during
the negotiation of the terms with the employee.
Application:
In the present case, before the offer was accepted by Max and during the tenure of negotiation,
he was informed that, he is liable to access the generous employee share scheme. It was observed
that after the contract was signed by Max, he observed that he could only access the employee
share scheme if he continues to work in the company for a period of 2 years. In this part, the
provisions of Section 18(1) can be applied which deals with the concept of misleading conduct in
trade. The case of of Barto v GPR management Services Pte Ltd (1991) 105 ALR 339 can also
be applied because it dealt with the fact that pre-contractual negotiations are binding upon the
parties to contract.
The case of Stoelwinder v Southern Health Care Network [2000] FCA 444 can be
eferred because Creative Advertising Ltd has misrepresented the terms of the contract and
breached the provisions of Section 52.
Conclusion:
It can be concluded that pre-contractual negotiations are binding upon the parties.

3WORKPLACE LAW
Question 2:
Issue:
The issue is concerned with the fact that whether the answer would be framed differently,
if promise was made to Max after the completion of 6 months.
Rule:
It is important to emphasize the Parole evidence rule which has been prohibiting the
parties from amending the terms depicted in the written document by way of previously stated
oral declarations not mentioned in the written contract (Wang et al., 2015). In this regard, it is
noteworthy to mention here that, when the terms of the contract have been negotiated by the
parties, it signifies that the parties have initiated the contract. The Parole Evidence Rule was first
observed in the case of Sydney v Taylor 1891. In the case of Hutton v Watling [1948] Ch 398
(CA), it was observed that the written contract has been signed by the vendor. However, the
vendor claimed that the contract was not represented by him. In this case, it was not necessary to
introduce the evidence because the written document served as a record.
The essentials of a valid contract are offer, acceptance, consideration, intention of the
parties and certainty. The terms of the contract must be formulated in such a way that it signifies
certainty. It is important to maintain the enforceability of the contract. In the case of Concrete
Constructions (NSW) Pty Ltd v Nelson [1990] HCA 17, it was observed that there has been
misrepresentation of facts depicted in the contract which made the contract unenforceable by
law.
Application:

4WORKPLACE LAW
In the present scenario, it can be stated that the answer would not be differently framed because
the terms of the contract has been precisely stated. In this regard, it is worthwhile to refer the
concept of Parole Evidence Rule. The contract can only be accepted by the parties to contract
when the terms of the contract are same as mentioned in the written agreement. The case of
Concrete Constructions (NSW) Pty Ltd v Nelson [1990] HCA 17 can be referred because in the
present case, the nature of the contract is such that the parties did not misrepresent the terms of
the contract. Therefore, it is worth noting that here was an offer and acceptance and the valid
acceptance takes place after the specific performance on the part of the parties has been
completed and is declared to be binding upon the parties.
Conclusion:
In the conclusion, it can be stated there is a legal right on the part of Max to get access to
the scheme if the promise was made after 6 months when the course of employment has been
completed.

5WORKPLACE LAW
References:
Cases:
Barto v GPR management Services Pte Ltd (1991) 105 ALR 339.
Concrete Constructions (NSW) Pty Ltd v Nelson [1990] HCA 17.
Hutton v Watling [1948] Ch 398 (CA).
Noone, Director of Consumer Affairs Victoria v Operation Smile (Australia) Inc & Ors [2012]
VSCA 91.
Stoelwinder v Southern Health Care Network [2000] FCA 444.
Sydney v Taylor 1891.
Journals:
Wang, X., Li, F., Liang, L., Huang, Z., & Ashley, A. (2015). Pre-purchasing with option contract
and coordination in a relief supply chain. International Journal of Production
Economics, 167, 170-176.
Wilkinson-Ryan, T., & Hoffman, D. A. (2015). The common sense of contract formation. Stan.
L. Rev., 67, 1269.