Employment contract law Coursework Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Employment contract law - Coursework Example 3. Mr. Tanton initially filed his complaint on September 9, 1997 before the Industrial Tribunal Chairman, sitting alone. 4. The Supreme Court held that Mr. Tanton was self-employed driver. His job was focused mainly on pick-up of newspapers and make deliveries to several addresses based on the instructions of Express and Echo Publications. In the Agreement of Services signed by Mr. Tanton, particularly, Clause 3.3, negates the existence of an employer-employee relationship due to the existence of the provision to the effect that â€Å"In the event that the he is unable or unwilling to perform the services personally as required under such agreement, he shall arrange at his own expense entirely for another suitable person to perform the services. In addition, paragraph 13 of the schedule, stated that: â€Å"In the event that the contractor provides a relief driver, the contractor must satisfy the company that such a relief driver is trained and is suitable to undertake the servicesà ¢â‚¬ . Therefore, the element of control on the part of the employer on the employee was not present since Mr. Tanton can easily find his own replacement or substitute, who shall take his place to render the service in the event that he is unable to perform his personal obligation to the employer. Hence, the fact that Mr. Tanton has the power to send his substitute means that the contract of employment does not exist, making him self-employed contractor. 5. Express and Echo Publications Ltd. is only required to retain one driver to perform the functions of pick-up newspapers and deliver them at various points in Devon on a fixed run in a particular order dictated by the company. In the case at bar, the reason for the termination of Mr. Tanton was due to redundancy. Hence, another person has already been performing the same functions done by Mr. Tanton which justified his dismissal from his position as a contractor. 6. The sources of English Law are case law or common law, and legis lation or statutory laws. In the case at bar, several cases where cited which served as precedent to justify the decision rendered by the justices, where, â€Å"a statement of law made by a judge in a case can become binding on later judges and can in this way become the law for everyone to follow, or otherwise known as the â€Å"Doctrine of Precedent† or â€Å"Doctrine of Stare Decisis†. Whether or not a particular pronouncement or precedent by a judge sitting in court when deciding a case does become binding on later judges depends on two main factors: Firstly, he has to determine what pronouncements from earlier decisions are binding and; Secondly, the judge must be able to determine whether any is relevant†. Details of common law/ case law and legislation and statutory laws can be viewed at UL Law Online website which can be viewed at . The later judge should be able to say that the case before the court is "distinguishable" from the earlier case. The applic able legislation or statutory law which is applied to derive in the decision of this case is the Employment Rights Act of 1996, particularly Section 230. The law provides a clear-cut definition of employee and contract of employment in order to justify its pronouncement that Mr. Tanton is a self-employed contractor. 7. The rationale behind the request of Mr. Tanton to demand from Express and Echo Publications Ltd. to give a written statement of particulars is to set out in written terms the terms of his employment, which defines his job

Chapter Problems Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Chapter Problems - Assignment Example The fourth Amendment to the U.S.A, states that human rights should not be violated from acts pertaining to unreasonable search and seizures (Scheb, 2011). The supreme court of the United States describes the security personnel as uniformed and armed private actors. In addition, if the security personnel are to be included in the Fourth Amendment protection, then they should be ready to serve the citizens just like the normal government officials (Cunningham & Taylor, 1984). This will ensure that crime and violence is curbed in all the states that have been experiencing increased crime rates. 6. What is the rationale for excluding from trial evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment? Is this a compelling justification for the exclusion of criminal evidence from the trial of a defendant accused of a serious felony such as aggravated battery? The main reason that is behind the exclusion from trial evidence obtained in the fourth Amendment may be due to the security officers (Hougan, 1978). It has been noted that the security officers are under estimated in their services. This is due to the fact that they are excluded from the Fourth Amendment protection. ... Since most of these guards are employed by the city government then they are required by the court to comply with the constitutional requirements. The court also proposes that instead of the private police arresting people for crimes committed, they should equip them with the Miranda laws (Cunningham & Taylor, 1984). 8. The Supreme Court has created a â€Å"good-faith† exception to the exclusionary rule where police rely on a search warrant that is later held to be invalid because the magistrate erred in finding probable cause for a search. Should the good-faith exception be extended to cases where police acting in good faith conduct warrantless searches that are later held to be unlawful? In the Fourth Amendment law, the term â€Å"good faith† is used to refer to the reasonableness state of a police officer in the belief of the existence of a warrant that is in fact invalid (Hougan, 1978). In a criminal prosecution, there is no exception to the Fourth Amendment require ment that all seizures and searches are reasonable in line with the good faith exception. Moreover, when the police violate this Amendment, the evidence is inadmissible to the victim of the search or seizure. Therefore, the only instance where a good faith is necessary is when police rely on a warrant in case of a search or a seizure (Feinman, 2010). When an officer performs a search based on his/ her own facts, and not one the basis of a warrant, then it is hard to claim that the police officer committed an unreasonable mistake. However, if a warrant or any other official authorization of search is required, then the police officer can be reported to have violated an individual’s Fourth Amendment