Does a contract become null and void if some or most of its terms were not followed by one (or both) of the parties? If two parties sign an agreement and one party can prove that the other party did not demand that the terms be enforced when it could have, can the other party argue that the entire contract is void and unenforceable because the parties never intended to enforce it in the first place or due to waiver? For example, an employee was initially hired for a one year term at $50 an hour after which the employee transitioned to an at will employee. The employee continues working for the company for several years. After a few years the company renews the employees contract for 8 more years at $75 an hour but continues to pay the employee $50 an hour and the employee never demands the higher salary. Let's further assume that the second contract contains several other benefits for the employee but the employee continues to act as if the first contract is in force. For example, the first contract did not provide dental insurance, the second one did and the employee never demanded dental insurance. Suppose the second contract contains certain provisions that the employee wishes to enforce during his 7th or 8th year of employment. Can the employer argue that the entire contract is null and void since the employee never enforced the other provisions of the contract? Can the employer argue that the employee &quot;waived his right&quot; to the second contract by not enforcing it and acting as if it never existed? Are there any case precedents that can be applied to prove either way?
Does a contract become null and void if some or most of its terms were not followed by one (or both) of the parties? No. Parties' temporary or systematic waiver of their contractual rights does not alter the validity or terms of that contract. Parties entitled to resume enforcement of their rights anytime. A party's noncompliance with his obligations gives the counterparty a viable claim of breach of contract, although the proper approach would be to first try to solve the dispute outside the court. In the employment scenario you describe, the employee is entitled to --at least-- back pay as per the second contract (the difference between $75 and $50) subject to the statute of limitations, which under NJ is six years for contract disputes. See Hagans v. Nickerson, Superior Court of NJ (Oct. 2022), (citing NJSA A:14-1(a)). This precludes the recovery of some of the back pay if &quot;the employee wishes to enforce during his 7th or 8th year of employment&quot;. A &quot;retroactive&quot; enforcement of other rights might be available, depending on the nature of those rights and other details. But nothing prevents the employee to henceforth enforce all of his rights pursuant to the current contract. Can the employer argue that the employee &quot;waived his right&quot; to the second contract by not enforcing it and acting as if it never existed? As explained above, no. Nor does it make sense for the employer to argue in terms of &quot;a right to the second contract&quot;. A contract establishes a set of rights [and obligations], whence &quot;a right to a set of rights&quot; would reflect the employer's poor understanding of the ramifications of the contract he signed.
A company generally cannot compel an employee to agree to a non-compete, but they have a wide variety of alternatives for inducing employees to do so. Most obviously, they may threaten to fire employees who refuse, whether immediately or at the end of their current term, as another answer observes. Indeed, if Big Company makes an NC a condition of employment then they are likely to insist on the same for employees they obtain from Original Employer. Firing employees for refusing to sign does, of course, put them in the job market as potential competitors, but the company may well find it acceptable to do that on their own terms. In particular, Big Company can ensure that those who won't sign go out the door with minimal knowledge of Big Company's clients, trade secrets, etc. other than those obtained from Original Employer. And that leads into other forms of inducement. Big Company can do some or all of the following things, depending on the particular employment situation: offer bonus compensation for signing promote those who sign and / or demote / reassign those who don't change job duties for those who refuse to sign do all manner of nastier things to be unfriendly to employees who refuse to sign Some of those fit directly into Big Company's perceived interest in avoiding employees using Big Company internal information to jump ship and compete with them, and others could fit into Big Company policy about which jobs require an NC. Some are just pressure tactics, but that does not necessarily make them unlawful (nor are all variations on the others necessarily lawful).
The general principle of common law contracts is that parties can contract to do whatever they like unless there is a law that says they can't. As employment contracts are one of the most regulated type of contract and as I am not familiar with UK employment law (which may vary depending on which country of the UK governs it) this answer will be general in nature. Probation will not affect the training question. Probation gives the employer the right to terminate employment without cause or reason during the probation period; it gives the employee no rights. In general, the contract is the contract: if you agreed to pay for training if you leave within the first 12 months then that is what you are legally obliged to do. You may be able to avoid paying for training in Work Health and Safety as in most jurisdictions an employer is legally obliged to provide this without charge. That said, if the employer misrepresented the role then the contract may be void or voidable - this would need real legal advice and evidence of the misrepresentation. All of that said, if you explain your problem to the employer it is quite likely that you will be able to part ways amicably and without involving the law - that would be best all around,
There are three answers here. First, as is common on this site, you are using the term, "legal" and "illegal." Those are not legally meaningfully terms. A good lawyer won't use those terms to mean allowed or disallowed. We talk in terms of potential civil or criminal liability, or other sanctions and consequences. To say that something is "legal" does not communicate much. Second, all contracts are governed by a duty of good faith. That means that you cannot try to "trick" someone with the terms of the contract and expect to enforce that contract against them and you cannot try to skirt your obligations by finding a tricky form of compliance not within the mutual understanding of the agreement. As with all things, defining good faith is not easy, and depends on the specific context of a situation. It is worth distinguishing between the duty of good faith, and the duties one owes to a fiduciary; good faith is surely far less, but nevertheless still meaningful. Third, a defense to non-performance of a contract is that the agreement as written is unconscionable. A contract that is a grossly unfair deal where the contract was not actively negotiated (i.e. Blindly signing a bad form contract), may fall under this category. Note: I am not your lawyer; this is not legal advice; contact a licensed attorney in your area; do not rely on my statements; I merely am providing a general answer that is academic in nature.
I had a contract with a company, but that company changed its name. Is my contract still enforceable? Yes, because what matters is the entity itself. A contract is not stricken merely because one or more parties changed names or labels.
First of all, there is no breach - they said they would pay it "over the course of the first year"; in what way is the first week not part of the first year? Second, breaching a contract doesn't always allow the aggrieved party to terminate it: in fact, being able to terminate is only for the most egregious of breaches or ones that are specifically spelled out as giving a right to termination. For example, failure to deliver (or pay) on time or in full would not allow termination, only damages.
Because a contract is simply an agreement between two parties to exchange anything of value, there are many, many more types of contracts. If the company hires you, you would have an employment contract. If you agree to pick up a shift this week for someone who will pick up a shift for you next week, you have a contract. If the company lays you off, you may end up with a severance agreement. If you sue them for race discrimination you may enter into a contract to settle the case for a million dollars. If you want to protect that money from your fiance, you might enter into a prenuptial agreement. If you get divorced anyway, you might split up custody of your children in a shared parenting agreement. All of these agreements would constitute contracts.
It depends on what you mean by backdated. If you mean that the terms of the contract provide that they apply to a period which pre-dates the date on which the contract was entered into then this is fine. The parties are free to negotiate terms which govern their past behaviour. If instead you mean that the contract purports to have been entered into in the past then no, that is not legitimate. Depending on the circumstances this can amount to fraud or forgery. In practice it is common for people to misunderstand the difference and so you will often find contracts backdated by inserting the past date as the date of the contract (the 2nd type) when the correct approach is to have a clause which specifies that the terms apply from an earlier date (the 1st type). There is also an implied question here about what those terms should be for the backdated period. The parties are free to agree what they like in order to &quot;rewrite history&quot; but failing that, what are the terms governing the period after the fixed term contract came to an end? The contract itself may contain an automatic renewal clause. Failing that there are a number of possibilities. From Practical Law (pay-walled): In the circumstances you describe (the parties have continued to deal) one of the following legal outcomes is likely: A new agreement has been entered into. A contract may be created by actions as well as words. For more information about contract formation, see Practice note, Contracts: formation The old agreement has been continued, on the same or varied terms. Just as a contract may be created by actions, it can be varied by them too. Contract clauses seeking to limit the parties' freedom to vary the contract, for example by imposing formal requirements for a variation, may themselves be varied. For more information on variation generally, see Practice note, Contracts: variation. There is no contract, but only a duty to pay a reasonable sum for services requested. For more information on restitution generally, see Practice note, Remedies: restitution In determining which of the above applies, a court will look at: What the parties have said and done about extending the contract or continuing to deal. The extent to which their behaviour is consistent with the terms of the old agreement. If the parties continue to do business in a way which is consistent with the terms of the expired agreement, this will support an argument that their relationship is governed by its terms. Whether a court will hold that the expired agreement has been extended in its entirety or that just some of the old terms apply will depend on the facts. However, the following cases suggest that where there have been no disputes over specific terms in the post-expiry period, the entire original agreement may apply: [rest omitted for brevity] Disclaimers: my answer is based on general contract law. Landlord and tenant law is complex and specific rules may well exist in your case. The terms of your lease may also affect the situation. We don't give specific legal advice here and you should speak to a solicitor about you situation if in any doubt.