Issue
Suzan is a local traffic warden. She is located in the area that covers the location of Duncan’s shop. There is illegal car parking behind Duncan’s shop and this practice affects the activities and operations of the shop in terms deliveries to the shop by suppliers. Duncan is offended by the parking that interferes with the operations of his shop as relates to the suppliers mobility in to the shop. As a control measure to mitigate this activity, Duncan approached Suzan to seek the help of the warden in relation to the parking.
He made a proposal of a weekly £ 20 pay to Suzan for ensuring that the illegal car parkers were given tickets. In response, Suzan accepted the offer and fulfilled her obligation to the agreement. Duncan however refused to pay Suzan on the argument that whatever efforts she had made was part of her work as a warden.
Rule of Law
By Duncan asking Suzan to work for or to assist him for a fee, he is legally binding himself to the terms of the agreement as long as Suzan does her part of the bargain. By proposing the arrangement to Suzan, Duncan is indicating his willingness to be responsible to the conditions set by Suzan as long as she accepts the proposal presented to her (Wishart, 2007, 69).
A contract is considered to be illegal if the subject matter of the contract violates public policies or are on their own illegal (Helewitz, 2010, p. 120). The subject of the contract in the case of the Duncan and Suzan is not illegal as the issuance of the tickets is a legal activity by local authorities. The aspects of proposal made by Duncan, acceptance to the offer by Suzan and the legality of the duty that Suzan was to perform qualifies the arrangement to be a legally binding contract (Helewitz, 2010, p. 120).
Failure by a party to perform his or her part of the agreement amounts to breach of the arrangement that existed between the said parties. Fundamental terms of a contract therefore established the legality of an agreement which then binds both parties to a contract (Winfield and Porter, 2004, p. 487).
Application
Once a valid contract is established, the employer has the obligation to remit payments to the employee provided that the employee meets his or her obligations as prescribed by the contract (Marson, 2009). The employer is not under any circumstance allowed to reduce the amount entitled to the employee.
In the case of “IPC vs. Balfour” it was established that employers are not entitled to make deductions in part or in whole, of the employee’s remunerations unless authorized by the employee. It was decided that unless the contract stated or provided for any such reductions, they remain invalid and illegal (Lewis and Sargeant, 2004, p. 46).
In the case, reduction in wages was accorded the same recognition as deductions. In this case, the international packaging corporation (UK) LTD had appealed an earlier court decision that held its deductions over Balfour’s wages as illegal. In the tribunal’s decision in the year 2002, it was upheld that the employer has no right to deduct an employee’s wage unless authorized by the employee (Lewis and Sargeant, 2004, p. 46).
Duncan therefore is in breach of his obligations established when Suzan accepted to commit to Duncan’s request. In his action, Duncan has seemingly reduced Suzan’s wage by one hundred percent which is unacceptable following the provision of the case law involving IPC and Balfour (Lewis and Sargeant, 2004, p. 46). Failure by an employer to render wages to an employee therefore amounts to breach of contract and can the legally contested (Mulcahy, 2008, p. 198).
Conclusion
Suzan is an employee of the local authority whose duty is to issue packing tickets to motorists. She is approached by Duncan, a shop owner to help him in solving the problem of illegal packing behind his shop which was a hindrance to the operations of his shop. An agreement is made between the two parties to solve this problem. Suzan fulfills her duty but Duncan fails on his part. The nature of the agreement does not conflict Suzan’s work as a warden making the contract legal and enforceable.
Duncan’s failure to pay Suzan her dues therefore amounts to breach of the terms of the contract between the two parties. With respect to the case of IPC vs. Balfour, it can be concluded that Duncan decided to reduce the wages due to Suzan by one hundred percent on the ground that Suzan never deserved the pay. Suzan therefore has a chance of winning a legal suit if she challenges Duncan’s decision.
References
Burrows, A., McKendrick, E and Edelman, J. (2006) Cases and materials on the law of restitution. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Cavendish. (2006) Contract law. New York, NY: Routledge.
Helewitz, J. (2010) Basic Contract Law for Paralegals. New York, NY: Aspen Publishers.
Lewis, D and Sargeant, M. (2004) Essentials of Employment Law. London, UK: CIPD Publishing.
Marsh, S and Soulsby, J. (2002) Business law. London, UK: Nelson Thornes.
Marson, J. (2009) Business Law. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Miller, R and Jentz, G. (2009) Fundamentals of Business Law: Excerpted Cases. New York, NY: Cengage Learning.
Mulcahy, L. (2008) Contract law in perspective. London, UK: Taylor & Francis.
Salzedy, J and Brunner, P. (2004) Briefcase on Contract Law. London, UK: Routledge.
Smith, I and Thomas, G. (2007) Smith & Wood’s employment law. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Winfield, P and Porter, B. (2004) Core management for HR students and practitioners. London, UK: Elsevier.
Wishart, M. (2007) Contract Law. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.