Employment Contract Case Study

Q1. ‘Consideration’
The issue here is whether there exists a sufficient consideration in the contract between Claudia and Jimmy. To be specific, whether other related duties in employment contract include serving customers is the key arguable issue. The performance of a pre-existing contractual duty is not a sufficient consideration, which cannot make a contract valid.
Employment contract defines Jimmy’s duties are food preparation and other related duties. Except consideration, the rest of elements of the contract is satisfied. Although Jimmy signed the contract without reading it, based on signature rule, the term in a signed contract is still binding. Moreover, in accordance with the parol evidence rule, previous negotiation will not be considered when the contract is written and entire. The contract between Claudia and

The exception of parol evidence rule is when the meaning of words used in the contract is ambiguity or uncertainty, previous negotiations will be considered for reference. Particularly, when the term is based on a specific request and a significant subject matter, negotiation or statement can assist to interpret the term. Jimmy raised a question of the statement about serving customers, and Claudia dispelled Jimmy’s doubts and said that she just wanted Jimmy to help out. Moreover, the statement about serving customers can be considered as a collateral oral contract to assist the written contract. In the negotiation, Jimmy emphasised that he was poor at serving customers and unwilling to do that, so the statement is a promise and without other influential factors. Furthermore, from Jimmy’s intention, no duty to serve customers is the premise of accepting the offer . Even when Claudia promised to give double payment, Jimmy is still reluctant to serve customers, which illustrates that customer service should not be included in other related