breach of compromise agreement by employer.

LadyMissA

SarEl wrote: »

Really - it's difficult to tell the difference between your sarcasm and your opinions.

And why on earth would I want to teach you law - I am supposed to be patronising and not very nice. Not that your opinions bother me - they are prone to be wrong on most occasions.

I don't want you to teach me law thanks as I am not interested. I never knew an opinion could be wrong as we all have them, but thanks!

Academic

LadyMissA wrote: »

I don't want you to teach me law thanks as I am not interested.

Yet in posts #13, #14, & #15 you were adamant that you knew the OP had a case..........

LadyMissA wrote: »

I never knew an opinion could be wrong as we all have them, but thanks!

Having an opinion is fine but the law isn't based on opinion (well, not your opinion anyway).

Why can't you just accept with good grace that SarEl & others have offered the OP good advice and that your contribution to this particular debate has been of limited value...........just my opinion.

Milkshock

[q

---

Milkshock

---

SarEl

Uncertain wrote: »

OK - I am going to say something here that SarEl can't!!

Had your compromise agreement been properly worded you could in all probability have got away with lying. The prospective employer would not have been able to find out about the previous disciplinary issues!! (Note: That is a practical and not a moral comment)!

Now, what is the solicitor going to say. "We advised the client that some of the terms were less than ideal but the client was unwilling to pay for us to spend time attempting to negotiate a better agreement".

That may even be true but if not you will have a devil of a job proving it is not. Generally an employer pays a set amount towards an employee's legal costs in a CA. This is a double edged sword. It is normally just enough for the solicitor to do the absolute minimum the law requires i.e advise the employee on the terms of the offered agreement. It seldom if ever pays for the solicitor to argue on the employee's behalf. If you want this you normally have to pay for it but it may be money well spent.

Why can't I? I am not a solicitor, and although I know many that I respect, I know plenty I don't. And it wouldn't be unusual for me to tell them so in no "uncertain" terms! I would happily rip apart a solcitir who screwed up a compromise agreement.

SarEl

Milkshock wrote: »

In all honesty the people who divulged the information at the old employer probably have no clue about the agreed reference at all, as they will have had nothing do with the original request when it came in, so i suspect they would have told all about the disciplinary issues. And that is the issue - the people who told them the information were not party to the compromise agreement and were not acting on behalf of the employer.

I'm still not convinced the wording has totally let me down here. Any law court will see that the purpose of an agreed reference is because both parties have agreed that certain issues regarding an employee should be avoided when discussing their employment history. You are not seeing the point. An agreed reference is only an agreed reference. Unless otherwise stipulated it does not preclude the employer from adding to this if directly asked. The court does not "guess" at the intention of a contract - it operates on the basis of what that contract says.

It is surely not to proivde a reference that can be ignored or thrown out of the window when an employer phones up and makes a verbal request or follows up an original request. It wasn't ignored though. They complied fully with the terms as stated in the compromise agreement.

If things were extremely serious the employer would not have agreed to an agreed reference in the first place. Want to bet? It happens all the time.

is everyones advice still to seek advice and that i may have a case?

It is my opinion that you should seek advice - I think only one person thought you had a case, and it wasn't me. You may find someone willing to take this on, and there may be a case to be made - but it is a long way off being a slam dunk.

LadyMissA

Academic wrote: »

Yet in posts #13, #14, & #15 you were adamant that you knew the OP had a case..........




Having an opinion is fine but the law isn't based on opinion (well, not your opinion anyway).

Why can't you just accept with good grace that SarEl & others have offered the OP good advice and that your contribution to this particular debate has been of limited value...........just my opinion.

god how boring. Why couldn't this person SarEl say 'sorry I am a lawyer etc' and not just lay into me. Very agressively. If I am wrong I am wrong but they is no need to get personal

Mistral001

To me, disregarding the legal details, the most important thing here is the following:

"....and I asked you specifically in our meeting yesterday whether there had been any disciplinary matters or allegations against you and you denied..."

Will an employer employ someone in this situation? I think not and they are probably going to fight it all the way.

If the OP had mentioned something about minor disciplinary matters, then the people who carried out the interview might view this completely differently.

Milkshock

---

Milkshock

---