Chitchat The minimum must work X mths law

[NanoSpeed]

Understand what you mean.
But is not applicable in real life situation.
This law is only to Phua hung.
So those teo hung ones will abide it.

You must not mix up the right to a cause of action or, simply put, the right to sue, with the probability of success. They are 2 separate matters. The contract between the agency and the employee offers the agency the right to sue. Whether or not the agency will succeed is a matter of evidence. When you asked "why do dirty agencies still need people to sign on such useless clause" the simple answer is it offers the agency a legal recourse if the standard of evidence is met.

I don't think any agencies has ever sued a employee who committed this successfully.
Unless they left abruptly or didn't report to work at all or worse joined another company during this period.

Your second statement proved my point. It's a scenario where the standard of evidence is met. However, without a contract and a clause stipulating the minimum period of employment, there is no breach of contract on which to commence a legal suit in the first place.

In the case of a driving instructor, he purposely drive and crash the vehicle, then get fired, in order to leave without having to pay the driving centre $ to leave.
How the court charge him? Company Lawyer say he did on purpose, he said no I not enough sleep. Case close. Lawyer/prosecutor suck thumb.

You are mixing up several different branches of law - law of contract, law of negligence and traffic offense. If the Company lawyer says the employee did it on purpose, by Company I take it you mean the agency, then it's for the agency to adduce evidence to prove that he did it on purpose.

Again, the right to sue and the probability of success are two separate matters. A low probability of success does not extinguish the right to sue.

 

[sbfuncle]

You must not mix up the right to a cause of action or, simply put, the right to sue, with the probability of success. They are 2 separate matters. The contract between the agency and the employee offers the agency the right to sue. Whether or not the agency will succeed is a matter of evidence. When you asked "why do dirty agencies still need people to sign on such useless clause" the simple answer is it offers the agency a legal recourse if the standard of evidence is met.



Your second statement proved my point. It's a scenario where the standard of evidence is met. However, without a contract and a clause stipulating the minimum period of employment, there is no breach of contract on which to commence a legal suit in the first place.



You are mixing up several different branches of law - law of contract, law of negligence and traffic offense. If the Company lawyer says the employee did it on purpose, by Company I take it you mean the agency, then it's for the agency to adduce evidence to prove that he did it on purpose.

Again, the right to sue and the probability of success are two separate matters. A low probability of success does not extinguish the right to sue.

Agree with everything you said.
But my final explanation, description of examples is to indicate the overall process is agency Phua hung lor.
Then those teo hung ones will abide by it.

 

[sbfuncle]

You must not mix up the right to a cause of action or, simply put, the right to sue, with the probability of success. They are 2 separate matters. The contract between the agency and the employee offers the agency the right to sue. Whether or not the agency will succeed is a matter of evidence. When you asked "why do dirty agencies still need people to sign on such useless clause" the simple answer is it offers the agency a legal recourse if the standard of evidence is met.



Your second statement proved my point. It's a scenario where the standard of evidence is met. However, without a contract and a clause stipulating the minimum period of employment, there is no breach of contract on which to commence a legal suit in the first place.



You are mixing up several different branches of law - law of contract, law of negligence and traffic offense. If the Company lawyer says the employee did it on purpose, by Company I take it you mean the agency, then it's for the agency to adduce evidence to prove that he did it on purpose.

Again, the right to sue and the probability of success are two separate matters. A low probability of success does not extinguish the right to sue.

I shall swallow back my question on why would agencies put those clause as the reason is like what you mentioned - agency want to have the right to sue.

Sinkies should learn to be wiser not to teo hung by such clause.

 

[NanoSpeed]

Agree with everything you said.
But my final explanation, description of examples is to indicate the overall process is agency Phua hung lor.
Then those teo hung ones will abide by it.

If the standard of evidence is met, it's not phuak hung.

The objective of the minimum period clause is NOT to (phuak) hung the employee, but it's a condition exacted by the employer. The agency has a more important contract with the employer.

You are only looking only from the point of view of the employee.

 

[sbfuncle]

If the standard of evidence is met, it's not phuak hung.

The objective of the minimum period clause is NOT to (phuak) hung the employee, but it's a condition exacted by the employer.

You are only looking only from the point of view of the employee.

In reality there is no way the standard of evidence can be met lor.
Only on paper law.

 

[NanoSpeed]

In reality there is no way the standard of evidence can be met lor.
Only on paper law.

Did you search the law library @ NUS to arrive "in reality" ?

And what about cases that were settled because both parties surmised the standard of evidence would be met ?

Evidence is a matter of fact, and every factual situation is different.

 

[sbfuncle]

Did you search the law library @ NUS to arrive "in reality" ?

And what about cases that were settled because both parties surmised the standard of evidence would be met ?

Evidence is a matter of fact, and every factual situation is different.

I think I need to book an appt with rajah & tann for this, same time can ask about gansiokbin pofma thing I.e whether the chamber staffs got laugh at her after she left their office in style.