Contracts CA: John & County News
Firstly, to advise anybody what to do in a situation like this i believe it is very important to understand the basics of what a contract is and what it involves also the differences between a contract of and a contract for service. I will explain the benefits and setbacks of each contact. I will also include various different case studies which i believe are relevant and will assist the understanding of the situation for John.
A contract is an agreement enforceable by law, between two or more parties, whereby rights are acquired by one or more parties in return for certain acts or forbearances on the part of the other or others. (Essentials of Irish Business Law, chapter 9, Aine Keenan)
It is very important …show more content…
The second claimant was a regular columnist with a fixed fee per week for a weekly column and was required to attend meetings throughout the year. The final claimant was a regular contributor of articles when specifically commissioned to do so for a fixed fee. All the journalists worked for other companies. The High court held that the first and second claimants were employees working under contracts of employment while the third claimant was an independent contractor. Carroll J specifically applied the Integration test when assessing the nature of the contract between the regular columnist and the newspaper: In Mary Holland’s case, I am of the opinion that her employment was an integral part of the business of the newspaper. The column was t run for 50 of 52 weeks of the year. She took part in editorial conferences. There was the provision for the equivalent of holiday pay. He case is not dissimilar to that of Beloff – v – Pressdram Ltd. Therefore I am satisfied that she was employed under a contract of service. In the case of the part time sub editor, his employment was held to satisfy the simple test of control by the employer. He worked at specified times under the guidance of the chief sub-editor and to his instructions. The fact that he worked part time did not change the nature of his employment. The third claimant was not regarded as being integral to the newspaper as in the opinion of the judge, she was a freelance contributor who secured commissions in advance but was under no obligation to contribute to the newspaper on a regular
Firstly, to advise anybody what to do in a situation like this i believe it is very important to understand the basics of what a contract is and what it involves also the differences between a contract of and a contract for service. I will explain the benefits and setbacks of each contact. I will also include various different case studies which i believe are relevant and will assist the understanding of the situation for John.
A contract is an agreement enforceable by law, between two or more parties, whereby rights are acquired by one or more parties in return for certain acts or forbearances on the part of the other or others. (Essentials of Irish Business Law, chapter 9, Aine Keenan)
It is very important …show more content…
The second claimant was a regular columnist with a fixed fee per week for a weekly column and was required to attend meetings throughout the year. The final claimant was a regular contributor of articles when specifically commissioned to do so for a fixed fee. All the journalists worked for other companies. The High court held that the first and second claimants were employees working under contracts of employment while the third claimant was an independent contractor. Carroll J specifically applied the Integration test when assessing the nature of the contract between the regular columnist and the newspaper: In Mary Holland’s case, I am of the opinion that her employment was an integral part of the business of the newspaper. The column was t run for 50 of 52 weeks of the year. She took part in editorial conferences. There was the provision for the equivalent of holiday pay. He case is not dissimilar to that of Beloff – v – Pressdram Ltd. Therefore I am satisfied that she was employed under a contract of service. In the case of the part time sub editor, his employment was held to satisfy the simple test of control by the employer. He worked at specified times under the guidance of the chief sub-editor and to his instructions. The fact that he worked part time did not change the nature of his employment. The third claimant was not regarded as being integral to the newspaper as in the opinion of the judge, she was a freelance contributor who secured commissions in advance but was under no obligation to contribute to the newspaper on a regular