Essay on Summary of Dillon vs. Champion

In 1980, a precedent was set in a Michigan court case involving a man named Charles Toussaint who was suing his employer, BlueCross Blue Shield, for wrongful termination based on the guidelines set in the employee manual (Alfred and Bertsche 33). The manual stated that employees would only be terminated for just cause, and the court decided that Blue Cross had violated the agreements in the employee manual (34). The court also ruled that even with Blue Cross’s efforts to provide a document that “issued non-binding guidelines” the employee manual was a contract and Toussiant was wrongfully terminated (34). After the precedent set by this case many employers and employees for that matter were reviewing their employee manuals for the type of

The area of law to be discussed would be implied 'terms of a contract which are not agreed by the parties.' They are terms which are related to 'contingencies which might affect the contract of employment in this case.' This is what 'parties intended but left unwritten in the gap of a contract.' There are five conditions by which a contract would be satisfied before a term would be implied. They are 'reasonable and equitable, necessary to give business efficacy so no term will be implied if

Employment contracts are encased by many legal frameworks which significantly influence the how the contracts are interpreted and enforced. These legal frameworks include tests used by courts to determine who is an employee and how these tests were altered by the Pointe-Claire v. Quebec case trialed by the Supreme Court of Canada,

This is an action brought by DEBRA COHEN (“Ms. Cohen”) for wrongful termination against her former employer, THE DAILY MIRROR NEWSPAPER (“Daily Mirror”). Ms. Cohen alleges that she received and acknowledged an employee’s handbook from the Daily Mirror at the time of her hiring which contained procedures that the Daily Mirror generally follows for disciplining and terminating employees. Ms. Cohen further alleges that because Daily Mirror did not follow the procedures outlined in the manual she is entitled to relief on the notion that the employee handbook created an employment contract between Daily Mirror and Ms. Cohen.

In the given situation, the parties had entered into a written agreement with conditions that were expressly mentioned under the contract. However, the employer had certain ideal conditions to the contract, nevertheless the employee had agreed to those conditions making her liable in breach of those conditions.

The ‘at will employment policy’ overview is employers can terminate an employee anytime and without warning or notice. However, the ‘at will employment’ has been challenged in some states because the policy was developed in the 20th century. Legal experts believe the ‘at will employment policy’ needs to be revised for the following reason: the ‘at will employment policy’ has been abused by some

At will employment is a policy of American law that describes an employment relationship in which either party can end the relationship with no legal responsibility, given there was no express contract for a certain term regulating the employment relationship and that the employer does not belong to a union. Under this legal policy, any hiring is assumed to be “at will”, meaning the employer is at liberty to terminate individuals for good cause or bad cause or no cause at all. The employee is also permitted to terminate a position or job, at any time, with no adverse legal consequences.

In this case, the plaintiff Elaine believes that jobs provide a reason, job opportunities of the company, and said her annual salary is $ 30,000. In other words, the plaintiff Irene might say that this is an illegal termination without any reasons and explanations, although owner Jerry is a "casual employer", which means that he may at any time dismiss an employee for any reason. Elaine can claim the "Contract exceptional" in this case. This means that there are between employers and employees, "implied in fact" contract. An implied contract in fact, refers to the agreement

Bennett-Alexander, D. & Hartman, L. (2015), Employment law for business (8th ed.), New York: McGraw-Hill Education

The points at issue of law in this case involving Neocort, the employer and Pat, the employee are related to employment law and specifically whether Pat, the employee of Neocort was properly discharged from his employment with the company. Prior to entering into employment with Neocort Pat signed an employment agreement which stated that that should his job performance be deemed unsatisfactory that Neocort would: (1) notify him of the deficiency in his work; (2) place him on a Corrective Action Plan (CAP); and (3) upon failure to improve to a satisfactory level within the specified period of time, that he would be terminated. Pat acknowledged that he had signed the employment agreement as an 'at-will' employment contract however, the contract contained 'expressed' agreements for the process of termination should the employment of the employee, Pat, be found as deficient by Neocort, the employer. The company, Neocort failed in all aspects of the termination process agreed upon between the company and the employee in that the company: (1) failed to notify Pat of deficiency in his work; and (2) failed to place Pat on a Corrective Action Plan (CAP); and (3) failed to allow Pat the time in which to improve his work to a satisfactory level.

OUR COMPANY ADHERES TO A POLICY OF EMPLOYMENT-AT-WILL WHICH ALLOWS EITHER PARTY TO TERMINATE THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP AT ANY TIME, FOR ANY REASON, WITH OR WITHOUT CAUSE OR NOTICE.

The employers have to consider these four categories when making the decision of termination EAW. Of course it is best to have ER to justifiable legitimate reason to terminate an EE, however common laws was created and should be used for both parties. They are the basic employment practices that I think both parties should be not taken lightly.

by using the doctrine of promissory estoppel there is a higher level of enforcement than is possible so that the courts have limited the application of the decision of Court of Appeal in the case of Williams V Roffey Bros. in this case the approach to the identification of consideration have left randered the doctrine of promissory estoppel mainly redundant in this context.

The employee handbook should include your business’ requirements for productivity, pay, sick and vacation time, insurance, retirement benefits, and attendance. It should also address the penalties for situations that involve chronic tardiness and absenteeism, sexual harassment, theft, and drug use.

Promissory estoppel was designed by the obiter dictum provided by Lord Denning in the case of Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees Ltd[ Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees Ltd [1947] KB]. In this case the principle of promissory estoppel was described elaborately. The application of this doctrine was actually followed by a pervious decision of which Justice Denning relied on. In the case of Hughes v Metropolitan Railway[ Hughes v Metropolitan Railway (1876) L.R. 2 App. Cas.] the Court in this case confirmed the continuation of promissory estoppel in the contract law. In the case of Tool Metal manufacturing v Tungsten[ Tool Metal Manufacturing v Tungsten (1955) 1 WLR.] , the court also apply the proposition of consideration and its relation with the contract