- Published on
Legal Terms – Employee
An individual who operates under the supervision and authority of another (the *employer) in exchange for remuneration or salary. An employee operates under a "contract of service" for the employer, while an independent contractor, engaged to execute a specific task, operates under a "contract for services" and is self-employed. The disparity is significant, as employees receive greater protection under employment law compared to independent workers. The presence or absence of an employer–employee connection dictates the expectations and obligations that can be anticipated from both parties, such as compensation, taxation, leave entitlements, and the need to complete labor. The determination of an individual's status as an employee is regulated by many judicial standards, however it has faced numerous conflicting challenges in recent years due to the emergence of innovative and flexible working arrangements (see Uber BV and others v Aslam and others [2021]). UKSC 5; Pimlico Plumbers Limited and Another v Smith [2018] UKSC 29; Independent Workers Union of Great Britain v Central Arbitration Committee [2018] EWHC 1939 (Administrative). Factors pertinent to evaluating the existence of an employer–employee relationship may encompass the degree of control exerted by the employer over the worker, the mutuality of obligations (i.e., the employee's duty to perform work and the employer's obligation to provide it), the contractual stipulations and entitlements, and the worker's ability to engage with another employer; nonetheless, this is not an exhaustive enumeration, and additional factors may be considered by a court or employment tribunal.
An individual who operates under the supervision and authority of another (the *employer) in exchange for remuneration or salary. An employee operates under a "contract of service" for the employer, while an independent contractor, engaged to execute a specific task, operates under a "contract for services" and is self-employed. The disparity is significant, as employees receive greater protection under employment law compared to independent workers. The presence or absence of an employer–employee connection dictates the expectations and obligations that can be anticipated from both parties, such as compensation, taxation, leave entitlements, and the need to complete labor. The determination of an individual's status as an employee is regulated by many judicial standards, however it has faced numerous conflicting challenges in recent years due to the emergence of innovative and flexible working arrangements (see Uber BV and others v Aslam and others [2021]). UKSC 5; Pimlico Plumbers Limited and Another v Smith [2018] UKSC 29; Independent Workers Union of Great Britain v Central Arbitration Committee [2018] EWHC 1939 (Administrative). Factors pertinent to evaluating the existence of an employer–employee relationship may encompass the degree of control exerted by the employer over the worker, the mutuality of obligations (i.e., the employee's duty to perform work and the employer's obligation to provide it), the contractual stipulations and entitlements, and the worker's ability to engage with another employer; nonetheless, this is not an exhaustive enumeration, and additional factors may be considered by a court or employment tribunal.
- Published on
Courtney and Fairbairn Ltd v Tolaini Brothers (Hotels) Ltd (1974) Court of Appeal
The defendants, as property developers, sought to construct a motel, a gas station, and a hotel on a five-acre parcel in Hertfordshire. The plaintiffs, as building contractors, proposed to provide the defendants with a financing source for the development in exchange for securing the building contracts for the projects. The plaintiffs requested confirmation from the defendants regarding whether the introduction would result in a financial arrangement.
…you will be prepared to instruct your quantity surveyor to negotiate
fair and reasonable contract sums in respect of each of the three projects
as they arise. (These would, incidentally be based upon agreed estimates
of the net cost of work and general overheads with a margin for profit of
5%) which, I am sure you will agree, is indeed reasonable.
The plaintiffs sought written consent to their terms, which the defendants supplied. The finance was appropriately established between the defendants and the financier presented by the plaintiffs; however, the parties failed to reach an agreement on the terms for the building work, leading the defendants to engage a different contractor. It was determined that no enforceable contract existed to award the building work to the plaintiffs. The court would not enforce a simple agreement to agree. The price was deferred for subsequent negotiation, as stated by Lord Denning MR:
the price in a building contract is of fundamental importance. It is so
essential a term that there is no contract unless the price is agreed or there
is an agreed method of ascertaining it, not dependent on the negotiations
of the two parties themselves… A contract to negotiate, like a contract to
enter into a contract, is not a contract known to the law.
His lordship also pointed out that:
…if they had left the price to be agreed by a third person such as an
arbitrator, it would have been different.
The defendants, as property developers, sought to construct a motel, a gas station, and a hotel on a five-acre parcel in Hertfordshire. The plaintiffs, as building contractors, proposed to provide the defendants with a financing source for the development in exchange for securing the building contracts for the projects. The plaintiffs requested confirmation from the defendants regarding whether the introduction would result in a financial arrangement.
…you will be prepared to instruct your quantity surveyor to negotiate
fair and reasonable contract sums in respect of each of the three projects
as they arise. (These would, incidentally be based upon agreed estimates
of the net cost of work and general overheads with a margin for profit of
5%) which, I am sure you will agree, is indeed reasonable.
The plaintiffs sought written consent to their terms, which the defendants supplied. The finance was appropriately established between the defendants and the financier presented by the plaintiffs; however, the parties failed to reach an agreement on the terms for the building work, leading the defendants to engage a different contractor. It was determined that no enforceable contract existed to award the building work to the plaintiffs. The court would not enforce a simple agreement to agree. The price was deferred for subsequent negotiation, as stated by Lord Denning MR:
the price in a building contract is of fundamental importance. It is so
essential a term that there is no contract unless the price is agreed or there
is an agreed method of ascertaining it, not dependent on the negotiations
of the two parties themselves… A contract to negotiate, like a contract to
enter into a contract, is not a contract known to the law.
His lordship also pointed out that:
…if they had left the price to be agreed by a third person such as an
arbitrator, it would have been different.
- Published on
Sudbrook Trading Estate Ltd v Eggleton and Others (1982) House of Lords
The lessee plaintiffs rented four industrial properties in Gloucester from the lessor defendants. All four lease agreements contained a provision akin to this one:
…that if the Lessees shall desire to purchase the reversion in fee simple in
the premises hereby demised and…shall give to the Lessor notice in writing
to that effect the Lessees shall be the purchasers of such reversion as from
the date of such notice at such price not being less than twelve thousand
pounds as may be agreed upon by two Valuers one to be nominated by
the Lessor and the other by the Lessees or in default of such agreement by
an Umpire appointed by the said Valuers…
The lessees duly gave notice of their desire to buy the reversions of three of
the leases, but the lessors refused to nominate a valuer and argued that the
agreement to do so was not binding.
Held the agreement was a binding contract (overruling an old line of
authority which had bound the Court of Appeal to find for the lessors).
The court would order an inquiry into a reasonable price, which the lessors
would have to accept. (I) Per Lord Diplock the option clause was a unilateral
contract which gave both parties obligations from the time that the lessees
gave the required written notice. One such obligation was to appoint a
valuer. (II) Per Lord Fraser ‘the clause should be construed as meaning that
the price was to be a fair price’. The machinery for setting the price was
incidental to this purpose and thus not essential to the contract (though it
would have been different for a contract which named a particular person
as valuer). If the chosen method breaks down the court can ‘substitute other
machinery to carry out the main purpose of ascertaining the price in order
that the agreement may be carried out’.
The lessee plaintiffs rented four industrial properties in Gloucester from the lessor defendants. All four lease agreements contained a provision akin to this one:
…that if the Lessees shall desire to purchase the reversion in fee simple in
the premises hereby demised and…shall give to the Lessor notice in writing
to that effect the Lessees shall be the purchasers of such reversion as from
the date of such notice at such price not being less than twelve thousand
pounds as may be agreed upon by two Valuers one to be nominated by
the Lessor and the other by the Lessees or in default of such agreement by
an Umpire appointed by the said Valuers…
The lessees duly gave notice of their desire to buy the reversions of three of
the leases, but the lessors refused to nominate a valuer and argued that the
agreement to do so was not binding.
Held the agreement was a binding contract (overruling an old line of
authority which had bound the Court of Appeal to find for the lessors).
The court would order an inquiry into a reasonable price, which the lessors
would have to accept. (I) Per Lord Diplock the option clause was a unilateral
contract which gave both parties obligations from the time that the lessees
gave the required written notice. One such obligation was to appoint a
valuer. (II) Per Lord Fraser ‘the clause should be construed as meaning that
the price was to be a fair price’. The machinery for setting the price was
incidental to this purpose and thus not essential to the contract (though it
would have been different for a contract which named a particular person
as valuer). If the chosen method breaks down the court can ‘substitute other
machinery to carry out the main purpose of ascertaining the price in order
that the agreement may be carried out’.
- Published on
Walford and others v Miles and others (1992) HL
The defendants sought to sell their photography processing enterprise and property. The parties concurred on the principal conditions of a sale to the plaintiffs, who committed to furnish a letter of comfort from their bankers confirming the availability of financing for the transaction, in exchange for the defendants' assurance not to engage in negotiations with other parties. The defendants were also accused of having pledged to persist in negotiations with the plaintiffs. The defendants rescinded the transaction to the plaintiffs and transferred the business to an other purchaser.
The court determined that the defendants had not violated any binding contract. An agreement stipulating that the parties shall negotiate (a 'lock in') is unenforceable, as it lacks the requisite certainty, according to Lord Ackner, similar to an agreement to agree. (II) A binding agreement may exist wherein one party refrains from negotiating with others (a 'lock out'). In this instance, the agreement lacked a specification of its duration, a critical feature, rendering it unenforceable due to uncertainty.
The defendants sought to sell their photography processing enterprise and property. The parties concurred on the principal conditions of a sale to the plaintiffs, who committed to furnish a letter of comfort from their bankers confirming the availability of financing for the transaction, in exchange for the defendants' assurance not to engage in negotiations with other parties. The defendants were also accused of having pledged to persist in negotiations with the plaintiffs. The defendants rescinded the transaction to the plaintiffs and transferred the business to an other purchaser.
The court determined that the defendants had not violated any binding contract. An agreement stipulating that the parties shall negotiate (a 'lock in') is unenforceable, as it lacks the requisite certainty, according to Lord Ackner, similar to an agreement to agree. (II) A binding agreement may exist wherein one party refrains from negotiating with others (a 'lock out'). In this instance, the agreement lacked a specification of its duration, a critical feature, rendering it unenforceable due to uncertainty.
- Published on
Legal Terms -Embezzlement
The fraudulent misappropriation of funds or property entrusted to an employee by their employer. Prior to 1969, embezzlement was designated as a distinct offense; it is now categorized as a type of theft.
The fraudulent misappropriation of funds or property entrusted to an employee by their employer. Prior to 1969, embezzlement was designated as a distinct offense; it is now categorized as a type of theft.
- Published on
Legal Terms - Emblements
plural noun, refer to cultivated crops that are typically harvested on a yearly basis. A tenant for life of settled land may continue to harvest crops he has sown if his interest in the land terminates for any cause other than his own actions. For instance, he may persist in harvesting his crops if his interest terminates with another person's death, but not if his interest was for life until remarriage and he then remarries. Upon his death, his personal representatives are allowed to harvest any crops he sowed before to his demise for the benefit of his estate.
plural noun, refer to cultivated crops that are typically harvested on a yearly basis. A tenant for life of settled land may continue to harvest crops he has sown if his interest in the land terminates for any cause other than his own actions. For instance, he may persist in harvesting his crops if his interest terminates with another person's death, but not if his interest was for life until remarriage and he then remarries. Upon his death, his personal representatives are allowed to harvest any crops he sowed before to his demise for the benefit of his estate.
- Published on
Legal Terms – Embracery
The historical common-law offense of corruptly attempting to sway a jury in favor of one party during a trial using promises, persuasion, entreaties, monetary inducements, entertainment, or similar means. By the mid-1970s, the offense was deemed obsolete, with the relevant conduct addressed through either *perverting the course of justice or *contempt of court (Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 s 51). Embracery was eliminated as a distinct offense by the Bribery Act 2010.
The historical common-law offense of corruptly attempting to sway a jury in favor of one party during a trial using promises, persuasion, entreaties, monetary inducements, entertainment, or similar means. By the mid-1970s, the offense was deemed obsolete, with the relevant conduct addressed through either *perverting the course of justice or *contempt of court (Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 s 51). Embracery was eliminated as a distinct offense by the Bribery Act 2010.
- Published on
Legal Term-embryo selection
The procedure for selecting embryos generated by IVF for implantation. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) enables the selection of embryos that are free from, or unlikely to possess, specific disabilities, or the selection of embryos with desired traits. Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD) necessitates a license from the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority (HFEA), which will permit the technique solely in cases where there exists a substantial risk of a severe genetic disorder in the embryo. Licenses have been issued to permit the selection of an embryo that genetically matches an existing child afflicted with a genetic disorder. Tissue from a child created as a saviour sibling can be utilized to treat the older sibling. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) permits sex selection of embryos for implantation solely to mitigate the risk of genetic disorders, prohibiting its use for societal purposes.
The procedure for selecting embryos generated by IVF for implantation. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) enables the selection of embryos that are free from, or unlikely to possess, specific disabilities, or the selection of embryos with desired traits. Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD) necessitates a license from the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority (HFEA), which will permit the technique solely in cases where there exists a substantial risk of a severe genetic disorder in the embryo. Licenses have been issued to permit the selection of an embryo that genetically matches an existing child afflicted with a genetic disorder. Tissue from a child created as a saviour sibling can be utilized to treat the older sibling. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) permits sex selection of embryos for implantation solely to mitigate the risk of genetic disorders, prohibiting its use for societal purposes.
- Published on
Legal Terms – Embargo
The confinement of vessels in harbor; a kind of retribution. Vessels belonging to a delinquent state may be barred from departing the ports of an aggrieved state to compel the delinquent state to provide restitution for the harm inflicted. An apt example of this occurred in 1839 when Great Britain seized Sicilian warships and imposed an embargo due to the two Sicilies granting a sulphur monopoly in contravention of a commercial treaty. A retribution would now potentially constitute a violation of Article 2(1) of the United Nations Charter. Refer to angary as well.
The confinement of vessels in harbor; a kind of retribution. Vessels belonging to a delinquent state may be barred from departing the ports of an aggrieved state to compel the delinquent state to provide restitution for the harm inflicted. An apt example of this occurred in 1839 when Great Britain seized Sicilian warships and imposed an embargo due to the two Sicilies granting a sulphur monopoly in contravention of a commercial treaty. A retribution would now potentially constitute a violation of Article 2(1) of the United Nations Charter. Refer to angary as well.
- Published on
Legal Terms – Embassy
According to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961, the role or status of an ambassador. The phrase also denotes the structure where diplomatic functions are conducted, formally referred to as the "premises."
According to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961, the role or status of an ambassador. The phrase also denotes the structure where diplomatic functions are conducted, formally referred to as the "premises."
