misleading job advert and interview invite

jacques_chirac

Denning. wrote: »

I didn't say it was the same as a job offer. By your logic if I sold you a lottery ticket with 'chance to win 1 million', you lose, the actual prize was £1000, there is nothing you can do as you lost. Doesn't matter intentionally lied to you, I just have to hope that the person who won (if anyone did) doesn't sue me.

Loss of chance is actionable
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_of_chance_in_English_law#Contract

Your arguments are all over the place!

In the case of a lottery ticket there are written terms that the parties have agreed to, there is a clear intention to create relations. No such intent has been demonstrated in this case.

bylromarha

Were your conversations with Reed, or the actual company?

As this could make a difference.

Denning.

jacques_chirac wrote: »

Your arguments are all over the place!

In the case of a lottery ticket there are written terms that the parties have agreed to, there is a clear intention to create relations. No such intent has been demonstrated in this case.

There is no clear rebuttal of the presumption that their ii intention of legal relations, so it is assumed.

jacques_chirac

Denning. wrote: »

There is no clear rebuttal of the presumption that their ii intention of legal relations, so it is assumed.

This sentence makes no sense.

I take it you are still not able to provide any precedent to support anything you have said?

Denning.

jacques_chirac wrote: »

This sentence makes no sense.

I take it you are still not able to provide any precedent to support anything you have said?

Still waiting to be told which point you want proving, or are you doing the whole 'Prove it all, prove to me this isn't the matrix'

Like I said, I can't be bothered to prove every single little point that you probably know is true but just want to be awkward.

Mulder00

Devil's advocate:

Was an entire day's leave required to attend the interview?
Presumably this was a very long distance to get to the interview, what other exchanges took place between the OP and the interviewer to confirm details of the interview? It would be a very long distance to go and not know too much about the position (also, nobody here knows the exact wording of the ad - it could be that it seemed to be for a full-time position).

Were there cheaper travel options available, like taking a train or a bus?

Just putting it out there - I think there is a lot of missing information & unanswered questions for anyone to be able to give any certain advice.

I would ask politely if they would consider giving me a reimbursement for expenses incurred, but definitely would not go down the route of taking them to court over it, unless it is 100% clear that you were led to believe that it was a full time position and you have more than just a job ad on a website to prove that. (Like a confirmation of an interview for said position stating that it's full time).

poet123

Nicki wrote: »

Denning, if you are correct in your analysis, there has been no breach of contract as the offer in your terms was to interview, and the company did indeed interview.

Where you are wrong however in your analysis is that this is not yet a contractual situation. Inviting someone for an interview is in law "an invitation to treat" not an offer (in the same way that displaying something for sale on a shop shelf is not an offer) and therefore the prospective employer isn't bound to offer the terms advertised (or indeed make any offer at all) to those who apply.

This sums it up. If you see an item advertised for £100, and when you go in to buy they say they have missed a nought off and it should be £1000 the shop are under no obligation to sell it to you.

They are not bound by the advert. Same premise applies here.

fruitedeli

jacques_chirac wrote: »

This sentence makes no sense.

I take it you are still not able to provide any precedent to support anything you have said?

Although I think Denning is spouting nonsense about OP able to claim, what he meant here is in a commercial setting, there is a presumption of intent to create legal relations under contract law. Only time there's no such intent is if the job advert expressly stated there's no such intent, or it's a casual interview with no prospect to a job at the end of the interview.

anamenottaken

Mulder00 wrote: »

Devil's advocate:

Was an entire day's leave required to attend the interview?
Presumably this was a very long distance to get to the interview (post #1 says Bristol to Sheffield: I would say that was long distance and would not be a return journey to be done in half a day - if the employer allowed half day holidays), what other exchanges took place between the OP and the interviewer to confirm details of the interview? It would be a very long distance to go and not know too much about the position (also, nobody here knows the exact wording of the ad - it could be that it seemed to be for a full-time position (We are told the position was "permanent" as advertised but described as fixed term at the interview. There isn't a question about whether it was full- or part-time).

Were there cheaper travel options available, like taking a train or a bus?

Just putting it out there - I think there is a lot of missing information & unanswered questions for anyone to be able to give any certain advice.

I would ask politely if they would consider giving me a reimbursement for expenses incurred, but definitely would not go down the route of taking them to court over it, unless it is 100% clear that you were led to believe that it was a full time position and you have more than just a job ad on a website to prove that. (Like a confirmation of an interview for said position stating that it's full time).

.....................

brunettifan

There are some very odd interpretations of contract law on here.

The poster could ask for expenses for the wasted trip but no obligation exists on the employer to comply.