商務(wù)契約關(guān)系outcome2

1、Case11. Contract of service relates to a person in employment.Contract for service relates to a person who is self-employed and who provides services to clients.In term contract of services is referred to in the employment and tax legislation, a person who works under a contract of service is: an em

2、ployee for payroll purpose and for employment rights purpose, and a works for other employment rights purpose. In contract, a person who works under a contract for services, is neither an employee nor a worker, there is on requirement for an employer to put such a person on the payroll, rather payme

3、nt may be on invoice. If you have contract of service, none of them you can get: pay him or her, provide the job, duty, have holiday and pay for the money, pay for the insurance. Contract of service of an employee, they protection by the law, and has benefit, they have right to claim under unfair di

4、smissal. Contract for service of an independent contractor, and no benefit. In the case, Cameron is an independent contractor; it means that he was employed under a contract for service, so it means there is no benefit, he has responsibility for his accident, he has to pay repair, insurance, maintai

5、n the bus. Cameron rates would be paid by the TTP, he was to wear the TTP uniform and the company would pay for major repairs to the bus. However, he would hire a replacement driver with the consent of TTP if he was unable to drive himself at anytime, in the case; his sister is a replacement drives.

6、2. Cameron is an independent contractor, so he has responsibility for his action.Commercial agent is an independent, because this regulation only applies to those who are self-employed, and who buy and sell goods for their principal.According to the control test, for example, a taxi driver can choos

7、e his route whereas a chauffeur follows a route given by an employer.In the case, there is nothing in Cameron arrangement with PCL which prevents him from working for any other company a business, so Cameron is a contract for service.3. 這題有幾個(gè)問題還沒有搞清楚。Case24. Fair reasons for dismissal: conduct of em

8、ployee, qualification or capability, redundancy, a statutory restriction, another substantial reason.這里5個(gè)可以自己挑，不一定要寫這5個(gè)，但是 conduct of employee必須寫，案例要用到Unfair dismissal: (1) if pregnancySection 99 ERA 1996 (2) raceRace Relation Act 1996 (3) disabilitySection 14 of Disability Discrimination Act 1995 （

9、4） Health & SafetySection 100 of ERA 1996 （5） Refuse work on SundaySection 101 ERA 1996 這里的5個(gè)也同樣，你們可以寫，不一定寫這5個(gè)In this case, Clares dismiss from employment is fair, because she is misconduct the employee.loyee ion Acbility-Section her substantial reason.usiness, so Cameron is a contract for servi

10、ce. an employer.i5. Under the section 98 of ERA1996Fair Dismissal, Clare breach of the conduct the employee, she has misconduct of employee, she use the drug, the Council can fair her.6. Clear have work over a year, she has right to claim for her dismissal.Under the Section 92 of ERA 1996, an employ

11、ee is entitled to be provided by his employer with a written Statement giver particular of the reason for the employees dismissal:(1) if the employee is given by the employer notice of termination of his contract of employment(2) if the employees contract of employment is terminated by the employer

12、without notice, or(3) if the employed under a limited-term contract, and the contract terminates by virtue of the limiting even without being renewed under the same contract.Case3（）Under Section 1 of ERA 1996 An employee do not need written contract, but need a written statement of particulars of em

13、ployment, and the statement may shall be given not later than two months after the beginning of the employment. The written statement is intended to be a guide for employees of their right, the contract must including company mane, employees name, employers name, duty, date, wage, vocation or holida

14、y, detail of work, age, dress code. In the case, Ravi joined the factory as a finance assistant three months ago, but he has not received anything about main conditions of his employment, under Section 1 of ERA 1996, the statement may shall be given not later two months after the beginning of the em

15、ployment.（）Section 14 of Defective / Dangerous Equipment Act: particular to be specified on every dangerous machine, such as its power requirement, and the name, address of the manufacturer, the year of its manufacturer, and the date. Consumer Protection Act 1987 and the Health & Safety at work

16、Act 1974 The Consumer Protection Act 1987, the only recourse available to an injured person from unsafe goods. For a successful claim under the CPA1987, Sharon must show all of them: the product was defective, there was damage suffered by the defective product, the defender was a producer as defined

17、 by CPA 1987. An Employers liability for the Safety of employees: by the commom law duty, the employees duty is a personal one to take reasonable care for the employees safety. He is required to take the same care as a reasonable and prudent employer would take in the same circumstances. This includ

18、es a duty to provide safe working premises. There has similar case, Latimer V AEC Ltd, an employer put down three tons of sawdust on wet floors to keep a factory open after it was flooded by an unusually heavy rainstorm and the water mixed with the oil on the floor to become extremely slippery. The

19、pursuer slipped on a non-treated part. It was held that the employer was not liable for his injury as in the circumstances, he had taken reasonable care. The employers liability for work-related stress, there is a case, Walker V Northumberland County Council (1995), a Social Service officer suffered

20、 a mental breakdown due to an overload of work. He returned to work having been promised assistance and support by employers this did not happen and his workload was not reduced. He had a second breakdown and was dismissed due to ill-health. The court held that the second breakdown was reasonably fo

21、reseeable so the employer should have taken steps to reduce his workload. He received an out of court settlement of 175,000。 The main statute here is the Health & Safety At work Act 1974: the HASAWA is criminal legislation, concerned with criminal sanctions and does not provide a remedy of damag

22、es for injures suffered by employees. An accident at work can lead to both a civil claim for damages by the employee, and criminal sanctions imposed against the employer by the HASAWA.（）David copied all the manes of the factorys customers that he had dealings with ever many years for his own company which he set up recently, but its not honest and loyal, the company can sue him, because it is the behavior of steal.（）The employer i