Nowadays, any managers and employers often have to deal with various contracts in order to get documented information about the terms and conditions of cooperation. These contracts are quite informative and important for regulating possible disputable issues and providing answers to various questions. However, they can also become a source of various limitations for employees; hence, demand exceptional attention from any candidate, who is going to sign it. The current paper will focus on the analysis of the Fabulous Hotel employment contract to prove that a contract is an inseparable part of regulations in business, and a serious document that can restrict the workers or partners on various levels.
Contracts always have to be carefully read before signing even if the same documents were freely signed by many employees previously. The signer has to be aware of the elements that are regulated (Seaquist, 2012). The example of the Fabulous Hotel proves that this aspect is crucial in order to avoid possible complications in future. According to the above-mentioned contract, the ex chef of the hotel becomes unable to work in the same position in another hotel during two years, and this contract is enforceable due to several items discussed further. Therefore, the court that would investigate the case would have to analyze five related elements of the contract, its belonging to the competence of the common law or the UCC to determine the possible means that would make the contract unenforceable and let the worker get the desirable job earlier than in two years.
Referring to the elements of the contract, Seaquist (2012) mentions such criteria as offer, acceptance, consideration, capacity and legality, which make the contract enforceable. These elements are crucial for the case examination, court proceedings and overall understanding of the values, capacities and abilities of the parties (Seaquist, 2012). An offer shows the desire of two parties to sign the contract and cooperate. Acceptance implies understanding the terms and conditions and agreement or denial to work according to these terms. The date is always present on the contract to reflect the period of the contract validity, its acceptance or rejection. Consideration is related to the legal values that are provided to the parties. Seaquist (2012) notes that mainly consideration makes a contract different from the gift because it is the mutual exchange of the efforts and energy. While the mental state of the parties is important, capacity is the element that reflects the state of mind of the parties (Seaquist, 2012). Legality is the final element that ensures that the goods and services discussed in the contract are legal. In another case, the contract becomes invalid.
Limited time Offer
According to DiLorenzo (2013), important actions on the way to signing a contract include background checks of the criminal areas, covering legal expenses, ensuring liability coverage, clear representation of individual reports to employees, which will allow to terminate the contract in the future and make it compliant with the law on the federal and state level. However, these elements are not always applied in real life. In summary, one can conclude that the contract is a voluntarily and consciously signed legal agreement that obliges both parties to follow the prescribed rules regardless of its type - oral or written.
With regard to the above-mentioned information, one can see that contracts commonly have to correspond to the following major demands to remain valid. Proper offer and acceptance stages are necessary. In the current case, the offer was not studied attentively by the employees. Therefore, the party has accepted the conditions without careful attention. Although it is important to realize that it was the fault of the employee, it does not break the validity of the contract. The contract is aimed to create a legal relationship, and it corresponds to this aim ensuring clear understanding of the conditions. Moreover, the capacity of the parties in the current case had no problematic issues. As for the lawful considerations, no fraudulent or forbidden actions were mentioned in the contract. The agreement was signed with free consent of both parties and following all the legal formalities. Consequently, all the elements of the discussed contract contribute to its validity. However, there are some issues that would make the court define the term as illegal. The court is the primary institution that can define the contract as valid or invalid.
While contracts can be either under the competence of the common law or the UCC, the agreement of the Fabulous Hotel is governed by the common law because, together with the real estate, service, insurance and some other issues, it deals with employment contracts (Seaquist, 2012). Hence, the common law demands that a contract comprises such issues as clearly identified parties, subject matter, terms and conditions, considerations, signatures of the parties (Seaquist, 2012). Instead, the UCC would regulate the contracts related to goods sale. Rashti (2014) paid particular attention to the post-performance obligations of workers and emphasized that demands can be legal and illegal. During the latest decade, contracts are marked by “tightening their contract terms” (Hotel Contracts, 2015). The example of the Fabulous Hotel is the evidence of how the hotels write employment contacts in their best interests. However, they are built on relationships and must be approved by both parties as well as all other legal contracts. Hence, in this case, non-compete agreements deserve particular attention (Rashti, 2014).
Benefit from Our Service: Save 25% Along with the first order offer - 15% discount, you save extra 10% since we provide 300 words/page instead of 275 words/page
Seaquist (2012) emphasizes that the demand of the hotel that the ex-worker refrains from employment with the competitors is called a non-competition clause. In particular, it is aimed to prevent the possibility that the worker will use confidential information of the company for personal benefits in the area or for the work with the competitors. However, too much time and too great distance are defined by Seaquist (2012) as the weak sides of the contract that are not likely to let this contract oblige the worker to refuse from similar positions for two years.