Capacity & worker

Capacity in this case refers to the full understanding of a worker on what he/ she is obliged to do. In this both cases should take into consideration that the parties involved were in a position to execute their duties as stipulated by the agreement. Evaluation to determine whether Mr. Steven was of sound mind while signing the contract is vital in determining whether he had the legal grounds to plead for compensation. From this case, Mr. Steven could have been misled or misadvised while signing the contract.

In that case, he could have been made to understand that Brodribb was responsible for accidents at work while on the other hand, an independent contractor is responsible for his own actions at the work place. There is a possibility of mental incapacity during the signing calling for critical analysis of the accuser’s state of mind. Mr. Bored on the other hand should have been in a capacity to ensure OH&S laws are followed to the letter.

Get quality help now

writer-Charlotte

Verified writer

Proficient in: Contract

4.7 (348)

“ Amazing as always, gave her a week to finish a big assignment and came through way ahead of time. ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

In the second case, Mr.

Hollis ought to have understood the terms of his agreement with Vabu. In this case consent would mean that he was supposed to carry out his duties in the capacity assigned. Since mutual consent is evident, the cases only pose the question of the state of mind of the accuser and the accused during the signing. Vabu ought to treat his workers as independent contractor which he did not do hence violating a legal principle. Principle of genuine consent

It is vital to note that both agreed to the terms of the agreement before signing it there by we can only dwell on what might have influenced the course of action i.

e. signing the agreement. In the second case of Hollis vs. Vabu, undue influence during signing may have influenced the decision of Hollis. If Hollis was financially unstable, the terms of the agreement no matter how unfavourable are the only option he has. This however does not justify Vabu’s treatment. Principle of intention In the case of Steven vs.

Brodribb, the parties involved should have been ready to abide by the contract regardless of the situation. Steven ought to have understood the legal definition of an independent contractor. In that case he would have reconsidered his action of suing Mr. Brodribb. If determined Hollis was in his a sound state of the mind, he shouldn’t have felt that Vabu was misusing him since it does not appear anywhere in the evidence that Vabu forced him to sign the agreement. He was supposed to remain loyal and bound to the agreement he signed.

Conclusion The above mentioned case studies fall in the classification of borderline cases since the judgment could have been made against any party and there would have been enough evidence to justify the same. These cases became landmark cases in the field of employment law and can therefore be used as reference cases in Australia by the employees, employed and even the judicial systems when deciding on judgments on such cases.

Reference

Walsh,J. , 2006. Employment law for human resource practice. New York: Cengage Learning