misleading job advert and interview invite

Denning.

marybelle01 wrote: »

I'm sorry but I really am serious - what law has been broken? What contract has been formed, other than an offer of an interview? Surely, even if (which they cannot) the OP proves that the salary on offer was £XX, what is to prevent the employer from saying that that was the potential salary for the right candidate and that the OP wasn't the right candidate and was therefore given a reduced salary figure to reflect that? It isn't unheard of for people to be offered a job at a lower salary than that advertised - if an employer does this, which law are they breaking?

Contract law has been broken. The contract being 'You will give us your time to interview for X vacancy'. The fact that the vacancy was for Y means that the contract has been breached, and the party which breached the contract is liable for the other parties costs associated with that breach.

Just because something is done all time doesn't make it any more lawful.

poppelina35

The advert was placed on the companies own website.

A law does not need to have been broken for a civil case to be started, the basis of my argument would be that a misleading advert resulted in me spending money I would not have spent had it have been accurate.

ILW

I would suspect that if OP pushes it, their defence would be that they may have offered the higher salary and a permanent contract to a better candidate, but OP did not come up to scratch.

hawk30

Denning. wrote: »

Contract law has been broken. The contract being 'You will give us your time to interview for X vacancy'. The fact that the vacancy was for Y means that the contract has been breached, and the party which breached the contract is liable for the other parties costs associated with that breach.

Just because something is done all time doesn't make it any more lawful.

Sorry, I disagree. For a valid contract you need offer and acceptance, consideration and an intention to create legal relations. How is that fulfilled by the current situation?

Denning.

hawk30 wrote: »

Sorry, I disagree. For a valid contract you need offer and acceptance, consideration and an intention to create legal relations. How is that fulfilled by the current situation?

Offer: We invite you to the interview for X
Acceptance: I love to attend the interview for X
Consideration: Be at A at B o'clock.
ITCLR: Presumption is that relations within a commercial settings are legally binding, this is a strong presumption. I can't see anything which would rebut this presumption.

RichardD1970

hawk30 wrote: »

Sorry, I disagree. For a valid contract you need offer and acceptance, consideration and an intention to create legal relations. How is that fulfilled by the current situation?

Tell that to ParkingEye and all the other PPCs who take people to court over slight infringement of parking "rules".

AP007

poppelina35 wrote: »

The advert was placed on the companies own website.

A law does not need to have been broken for a civil case to be started, the basis of my argument would be that a misleading advert resulted in me spending money I would not have spent had it have been accurate.

Ask the company to refund travel

If you start a civil case against them I hope you don't want to work in the same industry as this company as mud sticks you know.

hawk30

Denning. wrote: »

Offer: We invite you to the interview for X
Acceptance: I love to attend the interview for X
Consideration: Be at A at B o'clock.
ITCLR: Presumption is that relations within a commercial settings are legally binding, this is a strong presumption. I can't see anything which would rebut this presumption.

Ok, so you are arguing that there is an contract for an interview. OP had the interview, so contract (if there is one, and I'm not convinced) is concluded. I can see no breach of contract. Are you suggesting that there is a claim for misrep?

Or are you channelling your namesake and trying to adapt the law as you see fit?

Denning.

hawk30 wrote: »

Ok, so you are arguing that there is an contract for an interview. OP had the interview, so contract (if there is one, and I'm not convinced) is concluded. I can see no breach of contract. Are you suggesting that there is a claim for misrep?

Or are you channelling your namesake and trying to adapt the law as you see fit?

Oh no you didn't.

Whether a contract is 'concluded' as you put it is irrelevant to whether it remains actionable, contracts don't really have a deadpoint. I buy a phone from comet, the contract 'concluded' at the tills, despite several terms (returns etc) extending beyond that conclusion.

The offer was misrepresented, that misrepresentation enticed the OP to suffer a detriment by entering a contract they wouldn't have done but for the misrepresentation.

jacques_chirac

Denning. wrote: »

Offer: We invite you to the interview for X
Acceptance: I love to attend the interview for X
Consideration: Be at A at B o'clock.
ITCLR: Presumption is that relations within a commercial settings are legally binding, this is a strong presumption. I can't see anything which would rebut this presumption.

That has to be the most ridiculous interpretation of contract law I have ever seen. Sorry Denning, you are way off mark on this one.