U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Work and Employment
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Is the contract valid?
Contract is valid. 0 0%
Contract is not valid. 1 33.33%
Don't know but great question! 2 66.67%
Voters: 3. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-27-2019, 04:47 PM
 
9,198 posts, read 9,278,507 times
Reputation: 28813

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by KNPV PSD View Post
Not seeking legal advice. This has not happened. These are not facts...



Just wondering aloud here.


If someone does an act that causes an element of a contract to trigger, but the act was done illegally does it make the contract valid or not?


So lets say there is an employment contract that says if I am terminated I must pay the company $5000 in repayment for training.
I am in the Army National Guard and am activated to deploy somewhere.
The company terminates me in violation of laws protecting service members.
The company sues for the $5000 citing the contract.


Is there any case law either way? Not the firing a service member part but the illegal firing triggering the contract clause.


All opinions are welcomed but really would love some case law citations!
Talk to JAG office at the nearest Army base or one recommended by your unit commander.

A law called the Soldier's and Sailor's Relief Act should protect you against this kind of thing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-27-2019, 05:01 PM
 
Location: Somers, MT
69 posts, read 16,898 times
Reputation: 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
Talk to JAG office at the nearest Army base or one recommended by your unit commander.

A law called the Soldier's and Sailor's Relief Act should protect you against this kind of thing.

Thanks Mark, I know it is generally illegal that's why I used it as an example. I'm interested in if the contract repayment clause would be legally binding...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2019, 10:48 PM
 
Location: Silicon Valley
18,110 posts, read 22,978,628 times
Reputation: 35305
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU View Post
Quote:

"First, the clause must be legal or it's not enforceable anyway. Second, the court would expect the employer to prove that the firing was done legally - otherwise, an employer could potentially profit by firing people - unjust enrichment, it's called."


Technically, that's actually one thing rather than two: Unjust enrichment generally isn't applicable in the context of a legal contract. The former is basis for refuting the latter.
I disagree, but maybe I didn't make myself clear. What I was trying to say is that the contract and the actual act of firing someone are two separate issues.

It would be possible to have a contract that legally says that an employee can be fired and yet be charged for training, for instance, if the employee was fired "for cause."

And at the same time, the act of firing an employee who was being deployed, may not be legal.

I do agree with you, though, that that employee would use the argument that since the firing wasn't legal, or for good cause, then the clause in the contract requiring repayment of training would not be reasonable to enforce in this case.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2019, 10:50 PM
 
Location: Silicon Valley
18,110 posts, read 22,978,628 times
Reputation: 35305
Quote:
Originally Posted by spencgr View Post
Legal research isn't a free service you find on an internet board.
Oh sure it is. And it's worth every penny.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2019, 11:00 PM
 
Location: Silicon Valley
18,110 posts, read 22,978,628 times
Reputation: 35305
Quote:
Originally Posted by KNPV PSD View Post
I'm with you , however let's argue the term itself isn't illegal but rather the manner the term is enacted is illegal. Let's say I purchase a car with a clause that says if the vehicle is destroyed via fire I do not have to pay off the loan (ridiculous I know, but let's say both parties agree willingly and it is valid) I intentionally burn the car and invoke the contract saying I owe nothing....


Thoughts? Maybe I should have had this thread in great debates? LOL
I think you're trying to get us to help you do your homework now LOL, but I love this stuff.

In this case, what would matter is the intent of the parties and what a reasonable person would think was reasonable.

So, let's say the clause is exactly as you wrote with no caveats. In that case, strictly speaking, the guy who burns up the car says, hey, the contract didn't say I couldn't burn the car.

So, it goes before a jury and the question asked, per the jury instructions, would be what was the intention of the parties when they entered into the contract. Is it reasonable to believe that both parties understood that this meant by accidental fire, or that the guy could go ahead and burn up the car and not have to finish paying off the loan.

My bet is that the jury would say there's no way a reasonable car loan lender would agree to letting the buyer burn up the car in order to get out of paying back the loan. And it's not reasonable to believe that the guy who burned up the car really believed it was okay to do that.

This is like the example taught in law school about the guy with the barren milk cow he sells to a guy who was looking for a milk cow. The seller never says it's barren, but all he did was say he had a milk cow for sale and it was the buyer's problem for not asking more specific questions. He did, after all, supply a milk cow. He just never promised it was capable of producing milk.

The buyer sued and there was a court decision that said that a contract also has to have a meeting of the minds. Just because there was an offer and acceptance and consideration wasn't enough. Both sides had to fully understand what they were agreeing to.

Last edited by NoMoreSnowForMe; 06-27-2019 at 11:12 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2019, 09:01 AM
 
Location: Somers, MT
69 posts, read 16,898 times
Reputation: 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoMoreSnowForMe View Post
Oh sure it is. And it's worth every penny.

You should win another $500 for this post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2019, 09:03 AM
 
Location: Somers, MT
69 posts, read 16,898 times
Reputation: 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoMoreSnowForMe View Post
I think you're trying to get us to help you do your homework now LOL, but I love this stuff.

In this case, what would matter is the intent of the parties and what a reasonable person would think was reasonable.

So, let's say the clause is exactly as you wrote with no caveats. In that case, strictly speaking, the guy who burns up the car says, hey, the contract didn't say I couldn't burn the car.

So, it goes before a jury and the question asked, per the jury instructions, would be what was the intention of the parties when they entered into the contract. Is it reasonable to believe that both parties understood that this meant by accidental fire, or that the guy could go ahead and burn up the car and not have to finish paying off the loan.

My bet is that the jury would say there's no way a reasonable car loan lender would agree to letting the buyer burn up the car in order to get out of paying back the loan. And it's not reasonable to believe that the guy who burned up the car really believed it was okay to do that.

This is like the example taught in law school about the guy with the barren milk cow he sells to a guy who was looking for a milk cow. The seller never says it's barren, but all he did was say he had a milk cow for sale and it was the buyer's problem for not asking more specific questions. He did, after all, supply a milk cow. He just never promised it was capable of producing milk.

The buyer sued and there was a court decision that said that a contract also has to have a meeting of the minds. Just because there was an offer and acceptance and consideration wasn't enough. Both sides had to fully understand what they were agreeing to.

Excellent points! Thanks so much.


I really am just sitting on my back deck staring at trees and a lake and just have to much time on my hands...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Work and Employment
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top