Thanks for your input.

I am interested and somewhat surprised to hear that courts in the States take that approach.

As a casual observer, I would have thought that courts would have generally upheld expressly stated contractual provisions, regardless of who they favoured. The only exceptions, I would have thought, would have related to special circumstances, such as where the contract did not meet legal requirements or where the employee entered into the contract under a position of undue duress.

Nevertheless, from what you and Brad say, the reality is different from what I would have thought. Interesting.

Having spent much of my career as counsel to employers, I agree with Brad’s observation that the courts tend to favor the employee in contract litigation. It’s no wonder – the courts tend to believe that employers have access to pricey attorneys (which they often do), and that employees haven’t (which is also often the case).

That said, a good employment contract sets out the terms and conditions to which both the employer and the employee have agreed before “signing on the dotted line,” as we say in the States. If the employer and the employee had a good, honest discussion before entering into the contract, there’s no reason why the employer shouldn’t be able to enforce the contract. As you observe, the employer might not choose to do so, but that’s a matter of choice, not ethics or law.

Cheers,

Lauren
http://www.thebusinessethicsblog.com

There is not much point for an employer to have an ethical right to enforce a contract if they have no legal means of doing so.

Andrews last blog post..Socially Responsible Investment part 6 – Why SRI matters to companies

Brad Shorrs last blog post..8 Great Writing and Marketing Reads