Employment Act

Employment Rights Act 1996 - It deals with rights can get when at work including unfair dismissal, reasonable dismissal notice,

| The partners are jointly and severally liable for business debts and obligations. The partners are held personally responsible for the business and may be sued personally for liability. Partners’ personal assets are subject to lawsuit(s) made against the business. Lack of continuity; death of a partner may end the partnership/business if a buy/sell agreement is not in place. Disagreements may be difficult to resolve.

This is a 2000 word RBI on Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation) and Article 86 (Absence without leave)

Given the culture these days of “No Win - No Fee” solicitors, the majority of employers have legal expenses cover that allows them to be guided through all employment issues by professionals who have the expertise in employment law. Owners/managers are advised to use this service for even the smallest employment issue as not following due process can prove costly for employers. In addition, these experts and the advice they give are non-biased and in accordance with current employment legislation.

Due to its nature, partnership is generally liable for the acts of the individual partners if committed in the course of the partnership business. However, liabilities of every partner may be regulated by the written agreement signed by partners. If no written agreement is signed by partners, liabilities of the partnership are regulated by the Partnership Act. If one of the partners retires, he or she may not be liable for the future debts of partnership if an official notice of the change is sent to creditors and the public. However, there were no official notice sent by the partners in the case; therefore, Toby may be liable for the debts of partnership. Due to the death of the third partner, partnership may be dissolved. In order to pay off the debts, assets should be sold and partners are free to continue the same kind of business after the dissolution of the

Many believe that liability is a biggest issue in a general partnership than in a sole proprietorship. The owners of the company are still fully liable for any debts the company may accrue as well as the liability for any lawsuits that may be brought against the company. However, the bigger issue in a partnership is that now each partner can be liable for the other partner’s actions. If one partner is sued for malpractice, the other partner may suffer because of it.

When it comes to partnerships Alex, Bill, Carl, and Devon will have two options- a general partnership or a limited partnership. Partnerships are beginning to be a business form of the past. Once upon a time, partnerships were “the default form of business and provided the benefit of pass-through taxation, but lacked the important feature of limited liability” (Chrisman, 2010, p. 465). In a general partnership, each partner associated with the entity will be held liable for their own business decisions as well as

7.2 Default Payment Terms. Price paid will be fair market value as determined by MAI appraiser. All other purchase terms will be as described in the paragraph’s on Deadlock Buy-Sell above.

Employers have legal obligations, when drawing up a job description. The law states that employers must not discriminate against a persons, age, race, sex, religion or disability.

Partnership liability tort can take place when a partner or all partners acting on partnership business causes injury to a third person. Cause of this tort could be a negligent act, a breach of trust, breach of fiduciary duty, defamation, fraud, or another intentional tort (Cheeseman, 2010, p. 538). Under the Uniform Partnership Act, partners are jointly and severally liable for torts and breaches of trust (UPA, 2010). This is true even if the co-partner(s) did not participate in the act. The joint and severally liable tort permits a third party to sue one or more of the partners

The statutory claim for unfair dismissal recognises that the common law cannot give adequate protection to the employees through the contract of employment, in that wrongful dismissal claim depends upon a breach of contract of the employment, usually in the form of inadequate notice being given by the employer. Many dismissals can be considered unfair that do not amount to the breach of the contract, for the wrongful dismissal claims look not to intention, motive, or the effect on an employee of a termination of the relationship nor to the procedural protections, but merely to the form of in which that relationship has been brought to the end. This paper will compare and contrast the different area between wrongful dismissal and unfair dismissal.

The role of the tribunal and court systems in enforcing employment law is to ensure that cases brought before them are dealt with in a fair and consistent manner. Delivering an outcome that is consistent with the facts put before them. They have to consider the evidence placed by both the employee and the employer. In most cases it is for the employer to prove that they handled the case appropriately taking account of their internal procedures and ensuring that they were not in breach of any relevant employment legislation related to the employee and their circumstances.

The aim of this Assessment is to demonstrate an understanding of employment regulation and how it is enforced. Other areas covered include; how to manage recruitment, manage issues relating to pay and working time lawfully and how to ensure that staff are treated lawfully when they at work. Finally it will cover managing performance and disciplinary matters lawfully.

Goods are sold by description where the purchaser is relying on the description the seller the seller is providing since he has not seen the goods.

The failure of the seller in delivering the goods is ‘almost always’ considered to be a fundamental breach. This could be exemplified by a decision of Hamburg arbitration award, whereby a seller from Czech and buyer from Germany disputed over an advance payment for the goods and delivery. The seller suspended delivery of the goods claiming advance payment, whereas, the buyer requested for avoidance of the contract due to non-delivery. The tribunal held that, advance payment should not be a ground to suspend delivery, therefore, confirmed the request of the buyer to avoid the contract. Similar view has been held by an arbitration tribunal in China whereby, failure of the seller to