11月 10, 2017

论文代写:案例分析

论文代写:案例分析

法院还将在应用该原则时检查一些关键因素。首先,它将检查谈判过程,以及双方的谈判定位。这张支票是为了确保在权力上没有不平衡。从案例研究来看,有理由相信,在谈判时,皮埃尔可能没有寻求法律咨询,因此,在谈判和讨价还价的立场上,可能会代表皮埃尔提出一些不平衡。第三,考虑员工业务的性质。在员工与客户密切接触的情况下,约束的实施可能被认为是合理的,因为员工创业将以品牌稀释的形式提供竞争。人们注意到一个员工与一个品牌合作的员工可能会把员工误认为是同一个品牌,即使员工自己创业。作为总厨师长,皮埃尔的工作大多局限于厨房,有时也局限于电镀区域。他可能与一些重要的客户有过接触,或者如果有什么原因,顾客会向厨师询问。由于他并不总是直接与Le美食家的顾客接触,所以没有理由相信他是直接竞争。然而,顾客可能会根据他的招牌菜式、烹饪风格等来认出厨师,这也可能对Le美食家构成威胁。第四,法院还将检查Le美食家是否向皮埃尔提供任何形式的报酬或补偿,以施加约束。

论文代写:案例分析

如果雇佣合同显示了任何形式的补偿、福利或事先向员工提出的强制约束,那么法院将接受约束(Garmaise,2011)。为了加强约束,法院将不得不同意Le美食家的观点。然而,这种基于约束的报酬和补偿的条款并不存在。最后,法院将考虑持续时间和地域限制。如果持续时间很长,则限制可以被认为是不合理的。虽然没有硬性规定在什么时间是合理的,但众所周知,在一些非竞争的案件中,法院会将持续时间从12个月减少到6个月。然而,皮埃尔在非限制条款下只完成了5个月。此外,在地理区域方面,法院将考虑面积的大小。在仅仅是集团有限公司[2016]VSC 375的案例中,法院发现一项限制条款长达两年,时间太长(乔治,2017年)。在这种情况下,公众对公共利益的争论,支持关于限制的争论太长,而且涵盖的范围太广,可能会为皮埃尔赢得官司。

论文代写:案例分析

The court will also check some critical factors when applying the doctrine. Firstly, it will check the negotiation process, and the bargaining positioning of the parties. This check is done to make sure there is no imbalance in power. From the case study, there is reason to believe that Pierre might not have sought legal consultation when bargaining and hence it could be argued on behalf of Pierre that there was a little imbalance when it came to the negotiation and bargaining positions. Thirdly, the nature of the employee business will be considered. In such situation where the employee is in close contact with the customers, then the enforcement of restraint might be considered reasonable, as the employee starting a business will offer competition in the form of brand dilution. People noticing an employee working with one brand might mistake the employee as representing the same brand even if the employee sets up his own business. As head Chef, the work of Pierre will mostly be constricted to the kitchen and sometimes the plating area. He might have contact with some significant customers or if there is some reason the customer enquiries to compliment the chef. Since he is not always in direct contact with the customers of Le Gourmet, there might be no reason to believe he is direct competition. However, it might be possible that the customers might recognize the chef based on his signature dishes, style of cooking etc and this could still pose a threat to Le Gourmet. Fourthly, the court will also check to see if Le Gourmet makes available any form of remuneration or compensation to Pierre in order to apply the restraint.

论文代写:案例分析
If the employment contract shows any form of compensation, benefit or advance made out to the employee in order to enforce the restraint then the court would accept the restraint (Garmaise, 2011). For enforcing the restraint, the court will have to agree with Le Gourmet. However, such a clause for remuneration and compensation based on restraint is not present. Finally, the duration and geographical restraint will be considered by the court. Where the duration is quite long, then the restriction can be considered unreasonable. While there are no hard and fast rules on what duration are reasonable, courts are known to reduce the duration from 12 months to 6 in some non-competition cases. However, Pierre has yet completed only 5 months under the non-restriction clause. Also in terms of geographical area, the court will consider the size of area. In the case of Just Group Ltd v Peck [2016] VSC 375, the courts found a restraint clause for two years as being too long (George, 2017). Arguments for public interest made in the context of this case, with supporting arguments on the restraint being too long, and encompassing too wide, a geographic area might probably win the case for Pierre.

Copyright © 2020 · Essay Times 论文时 All Rights Reserved · Service & Product Provided Are Used Solely for The Purpose of Research Only