misleading job advert and interview invite

hawk30

Denning. wrote: »

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.

Are you arguing breach of contract or misrep? They are not the same thing.

Denning.

hawk30 wrote: »

Are you arguing breach of contract or misrep? They are not the same thing.

Lets got with misrep, it is more suited.

jacques_chirac wrote: »

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.

Well thank you for you well thought out criticism...

marybelle01

I would advise the OP to take proper legal advice before incurring court costs on what I believe is a wild goose chase. It is not sufficient to simply reiterate an opinion that "contract law" has been broken to substantiate a legal claim. I have asked several ties now for a legal clarification as to the basis of the law being used here, and that has not been forthcoming.

It would no doubt be very useful to the OP - who despite their assertion that they don't need to show a law has been broken to mount a court case, may in actual fact need the law to substantiate their claim - if someone could explain exactly what law the putative claim is based on, and what precedent exists to support their claim. I know I would be very interested in such facts. It is why I keep asking (in vain) for them! It can't be a very complex legal argument if it is as simple as has been suggested, so it shouldn't be too difficult for someone to do this for us.

fruitedeli

OP do you have proof the job description you were interviewed for was different to the job advert? It's your word against the interviewer's.

It's also just an interview with no guarantee you'll actually get the job.

You can make a claim but you're likely to get cost awarded to you for wasting court time.

poppelina35

Wow, I wasnt expecting quite so many replies! I was interviewed for the same job as I applied for it was just the nature of the contract and salary that differed. I pointed this out at interview and they apologised and said they would address the discrepancies with HR.

Going4TheDream

I would be somewhat annoyed as well but legal advice doesn't come cheap, and there is a cost for lodging a claim through the small claims court, and given the fact that this would come down to 'he said she said' I would put it down to experience and move on, preferring to put my energy into finding the new job that I wanted.

poppelina35

Wow, I wasnt expecting quite so many replies! I was interviewed for the same job as I applied for it was just the nature of the contract and salary that differed. I pointed this out at interview and they apologised and said they would address the discrepancies with HR.

AP007

poppelina35 wrote: »

Wow, I wasnt expecting quite so many replies! I was interviewed for the same job as I applied for it was just the nature of the contract and salary that differed. I pointed this out at interview and they apologised and said they would address the discrepancies with HR.

You don't have to take the job though

Pont

If you turn this situation on it's head - so to speak - in theory the OP could have been offered this job following interview (permanent, £30,000pa etc). The OP could then have had a change of heart and declined the job offer.

Denning, by your reasoning, the company could then claim costs of conducting the interview from the OP as they perhaps 'misrepresented' their interest in the post!

As the company has apologised to the OP, I would agree with those who have suggested contacting the company and asking if they would meet the OP's expenses on this occasion. Don't believe they would have to though.

marybelle01

I don't want anyone to get me wrong. If what the OP says is accurate, then the potential employer is morally wrong. But MORALLY isn't LEGALLY.

It costs money to make a legal claim of any sort now. That's the bottom line. I would be entirely happy to be assured the OP has a claim in law. I don't believe they have, and I have asked Denning, who says they have, to explain the basis of a claim several times now. "it's contract law" doesn't cut it. I am not paying the legal costs. Denning isn't paying the legal costs. I think the OP has a right to know, SINCE THEY WILL BE PAYING THE LEGAL COSTS, on what basis "contract law" actually applies.