Question

n September, Amina hired Bryan as a delivery man. Bryan was to commence work on 1 November. On 1 October, Amina wrote to Bryan telling him that, despite their agreement, economic circumstances were such that she no longer required his services. Can Bryan sue Amina? Explain your answers in light of the principles learned on breach of contract using IRAC method(10 marks, maximum 500 words)

Answer 1

In this case, Bryan does not have a strong legal claim to sue Amina following the economic circumstances which were such that she no longer required his services. Nevertheless, he can still make a claim against Amina to be compensated for damages incurred such as in a situation where he had already quit his previous job in regard to the employment agreement with Amina to commence work on 1 November. An employer can be fired even before they've worked at all as long as the employer has a legal reason to execute the firing. Amina can make a counterclaim under At-will employment which is a concept used for contractual relationships in which an employee can be dismissed by an employer for any reason without having to establish "just cause" for termination, and without warning, as long as the reason is not illegal. When an employee is acknowledged as being hired "at will," courts deny the employee any claim for loss resulting from the dismissal. The rule is justified by its proponents on the basis that an employee may be similarly entitled to leave his or her job without reason or warning. For instance, Martin v New York Life Ins Co in 1895. Bartlett J asserted that New York law now followed Wood's treatise, which meant that an employee who received $10,000, paid in a salary over a year, could be dismissed immediately. The case did not make reference to the previous authority. Four years earlier, in 1891, Adams v Fitzpatrick had held that New York law followed the general practice of requiring notice similar to pay periods. However, subsequent New York cases continued to follow the at-will rule into the early 20th century. The doctrine of at-will employment can be overridden by an express contract or civil service statutes.

Labor Code section 2922 establishes the presumption that an employer may terminate its employees at will, for any or no reason. A fortiori, the employer may act peremptorily, arbitrarily, or inconsistently, without providing specific protections such as prior warning, fair procedures, objective evaluation, or preferential reassignment. Because the employment relationship is "fundamentally contractual", limitations on these employer prerogatives are a matter of the parties' specific agreement, express or implied in fact. The mere existence of an employment relationship affords no expectation, protectable by law, that employment will continue, or will end only on certain conditions unless the parties have actually adopted such terms. Thus if the employer's termination decisions, however arbitrary, do not breach such a substantive contract provision, they are not precluded by the covenant