Prohibition of pledges and assignments In lay-mans terms, what does a clause in a contract mean when it says: The employee is generally prohibited from assigning or pledging salary requested to third parties. The employer shall charge a reimbursement of expenses in the lump of 15 EURO for the initial processing and for each subsequent transfer of a pledge in case remuneration is pledged.
If the translation is correct, an assignment or pledge is an irrevocable pre-dispute grant of a property interest in future wages, and such an arrangement will not honored by the employer in the absence of a specific exception to the general rule of law prohibiting such arrangements (these arrangements are functionally equivalent to indentured servitude which is just a short step removed from slavery). An assignment is an irrevocable transfer of the right to future income that will be paid to the assignee that is a property right in that income. A pledge grants an irrevocable property right to future income to the beneficiary of the pledge in the event that a debt is not paid as agreed without the need to resort to filing a lawsuit (it is functionally equivalent to a confession of judgment paired with a garnishment). Assignments and pledges of income from property or a business is allowed, but you can't generally do that with wage or salary income as a matter of public policy. For example, you cannot make an irrevocable transfer of 25% of your future income for five years or until the car is paid off to pay for a new car. You can sign a promissory note to pay a certain amount of money that happens to be equal to 25% of your income, and can receive the money from your employer and pay it to the creditor. But, that is a contract right and not a property right, which means that you can unilaterally breach it subject to being sued for non-payment, that the contract debt will not survive a bankruptcy, and that a lawsuit has to be commenced and won to collect that debt involuntarily. If the car loan is not paid as agreed, and you don't go bankrupt, the creditor can sue you, win and garnish your wages after winning, but only then. But, there are exceptions to the general rule prohibiting the assignment or pledge or future wage and salary income, however, on various legal theories (e.g. that future wages and salary are community property of spouses). For example, sometimes this kind of wage assignment is permitted in the context of a divorce settlement. And, if it is permitted by law, the company will charge you to set it up, just as it would if your wages were garnished to collect on a post-dispute judgment.
There is a reason these are commonly called &quot;TRAP&quot;s (Training Repayment Agreement Provision). These agreements don't just protect the employer from paying for training that an employee can use elsewhere. These agreements frequently act to &quot;trap&quot; the employee in difficult employment circumstances where the employer can demand long hours and excessive dedication in difficult jobs for little pay, knowing that if the employee tries to leave, they could face a substantial financial burden. These agreements are generally legal, provided they are executed in good faith. However, certain circumstances have been used to void the agreements. In particular: If the cost or value of the the training is vastly overstated, so the training actually provides minimal value to the employee, but has a disproportionately large repayment cost that only benefit the employer. If the term of the agreement is excessively long (typically, more than 1 year). Training is unlikely to be so valuable and specialized that the employee would need years to repay the benefits. (Certain exceptions apply, such as for advanced engineering work or specialized skills like airline pilots) If the &quot;training&quot; doesn't actually have much value; if the training is just company propaganda and policies, rather than job specific skills, repayment costs are unlikely to hold up in a dispute. If the employee already has demonstrated skills before the training, then forcing them into unnecessary training just for a TRAP contract is unlikely to be supported. For example, someone with years of skilled electrical design work probably cannot be forced to repay thousands of dollars of &quot;training&quot; for a few weeks of basic electrical refresher courses. Basically, if the training isn't valuable to the employee and the cost isn't reasonable for the training, the TRAP line can frequently be voided. Yet doing so almost always requires mediation or a suit, which are also expensive, time consuming, and have uncertain outcomes. Its best for a prospective employee to call out a TRAP provision as a red flag before accepting an offer, and avoid it if at all possible unless they truly believe they'll benefit from the training, intend to stay the full term, and understand the employer might use the cost as a way to expect more from them or hold back their professional advancement.
An employee is an agent of the employer when working and owes a duty of loyalty to the employer. One of the obligations associated with a duty of loyalty is to refrain from receiving anything other than the employer authorized compensation for the work, rather than benefitting personally from work done on behalf of the employer. By appropriating additional benefit from the customer in a way that is unauthorized by the employer (the employer would be within its rights to sanction and authorize this conduct if desired), an employee who does not turn the profit in this transaction over to the employer has breached a fiduciary duty to the employer for which the employer would have a right to sue the employee for the amount by which the employee was unjustly enriched in the transaction. Would it actually play out this way in real life for these sums of money? Probably not. The stakes involved wouldn't justify the time and money of a lawsuit. But, breaching a fiduciary duty of loyalty to your employer in this context probably constitutes good cause to terminate the employment of the employee without paying severance that would otherwise be payable under Canadian employment law (in theory anyway, I've never seen a reported court case on point).
The parties to the contract have not changed; they are still the purchaser company and the scrap vendor. The obligations have not changed; they are presumably based on amounts of stock and monetary value. The only changes are in the name of one party and its ownership, so unless the contract permits termination for those reasons (not unheard of, if a contract has been intended to provide/avert support from/by a particular party or symbolism) the contract still stands with all its terms. A novation is not needed.
No The contract is created at the moment that an offer was accepted. In normal circumstances: You accepted an offer that they made to the general public by sending a purchase order for specific items at specific prices, or They accepted your offer by communicating their acceptance to you (being advised that the goods have been dispatched counts). However, in this circumstance, the company has been explicit that the contract is only created when either: You checkout and pay, or They “supply an invoice to you.” It appears that neither event happened so there is no contract. Their specific terms have overridden the common law rules on offer and acceptance (as they are allowed to do) and the offer has not been accepted until you receive their invoice. Specifically, it cannot be accepted by performance (dispatching the goods) and the requirement for the invoice to be supplied overrides the postal rule. Note that, in this case, you got lucky. 99 times out of 100 there would have been a valid contract and you would have breached it. In future, cancel orders specifically, don’t make assumptions.
For a contract (including ToS) to be valid, one of the things it must have is "legality of objects". That is, if the contract purports to require anything that is unlawful in the jurisdiction then (barring a severance clause) it is not a contract. In common law countries, the starting point is that people are free to contract for and about anything they like - a contract is simply a mechanism for exchanging value between the parties on whatever terms they wish. However, judges and legislatures have decided that there are some things you cannot trade and some terms that are unconscionable or against the public interest and these vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction*. For example, a contract is not legal in any jurisdiction if its terms seek to exclude the intervention of the courts - this is against public policy. So for example, a binding arbitration clause requiring the parties to accept a private arbitrator's decision as final excludes the courts, yes? Well, in Australia, yes, such clauses if used in a contract between parties with different bargaining power (like a Telco and its customers) are invalid because they prevent the weaker party pursuing a class action. However, they are perfectly legal in the United States because the SCOTUS has determined that the customer can persue litigation after arbitration is finished so this doesn't impede the courts. These are essentially the same laws interpreted by the courts so that they have totally opposite effects. So this might lead you to think that you'll put one in - it'll be OK in the US and Australians will represent such a tiny share of your market that you don't care if I can't enforce my ToS there. Except, if your website is visible by Australians, you have just exposed yourself to a government fine of up to AUD 5,000,000 (say USD 3,000,000) per day for breach of Australian Consumer Law. As a general guide (which is very stereotypical), US jurisdictions are the most permissive in the rights they will allow their citizens to give up: the US attitude is that everyone is free to make the best deal they can. European jurisdictions are the least permissive in this regard: most European countries follow a more social welfare state model and the citizen needs protecting from themselves. Commonwealth countries tend to be more in the middle.
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.
You may want to ask Reich what he personally was talking about. There is a distinction within the US between states which prohibit mandatory union membership versus allow mandatory union membership. In about half of the states, a union cannot force an employer to accept a contract which obligates that a person join the union. These are known as right-to-work laws. No state requires all workers to join a union, and no state forbids the formation of unions.