<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Andy Roo @ Sep 13 2008, 05:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Jumkie, don’t want to upset you but any employment situation is based in contract. By definition Nicky was an employee as he did not supply his own tools and insurance etc.etc. to do the job.
Mind you now it is a legal question I call to account the duty at common law for the employer (Honda) to adhere to its duty ‘not to destroy mutual trust and confidence in the employment relationship’. There is now developing at law a broader ‘good faith’ obligation, which is both contentious and rather interesting. These types of decisions are spreading through the western world like wildfire.
In Australia the full bench of the Arbitration commission in the Walker case (Walker v Citigroup Global Markets Australia Pty Limited 2005) applied an assumption that employment contracts are obliged to act in good faith, by cooperating to give effect to the mutually determined expectations of the relationship
Subsequent to the Walker case the New South Wales Supreme Court has held (in Russell v Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church) that there is a duty to act in good faith, and that it imports an obligation to exercise ‘prudence, caution and diligence to ‘avoid or minimise adverse consequences to the other party’.
Now that is mostly just legal .... however it means the two parties are obliged to act properly and to exert the proper amount of care and skill as the other requires in order to be benefiting from the relationship. In other words “if you employ me, you must give me what I need (within reason) to do my job. Do not hold me to ridicule or sideline me”. I note Nicki’s sarcasm when stating in his pre race interview that if he didn’t turn up some people wouldn’t notice.
Not litigating against Honda and talking in very abstract terms here it would seem that Honda hasn’t fulfilled its obligation to Nicki and there is in a broad sense a breach of contract but I personally wouldn’t take them on, it’s just that Nicki gave his very best, did as much as he could for Honda and is now gracious and humble in departure whilst Honda have hardly fulfilled any obligation to Nicki to treat him all that well, I mean he gave them their only championship after Rossi. As soon as the gormless midget arrived he was screwed over and marginalised.
For what it’s worth I think the good relationship between he and Casey and the good relationship Ducati has had with Australian riders will benefit Nicki and he can give Pedrosa, Puig and Mr Honda the big “.... you”.
God I love the law, so ....... boring
From the Carlton United drinkers legal team
EDIT: How do you think Pedders and Puig got out of their Michelin contract?
See your PM.
Mind you now it is a legal question I call to account the duty at common law for the employer (Honda) to adhere to its duty ‘not to destroy mutual trust and confidence in the employment relationship’. There is now developing at law a broader ‘good faith’ obligation, which is both contentious and rather interesting. These types of decisions are spreading through the western world like wildfire.
In Australia the full bench of the Arbitration commission in the Walker case (Walker v Citigroup Global Markets Australia Pty Limited 2005) applied an assumption that employment contracts are obliged to act in good faith, by cooperating to give effect to the mutually determined expectations of the relationship
Subsequent to the Walker case the New South Wales Supreme Court has held (in Russell v Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church) that there is a duty to act in good faith, and that it imports an obligation to exercise ‘prudence, caution and diligence to ‘avoid or minimise adverse consequences to the other party’.
Now that is mostly just legal .... however it means the two parties are obliged to act properly and to exert the proper amount of care and skill as the other requires in order to be benefiting from the relationship. In other words “if you employ me, you must give me what I need (within reason) to do my job. Do not hold me to ridicule or sideline me”. I note Nicki’s sarcasm when stating in his pre race interview that if he didn’t turn up some people wouldn’t notice.
Not litigating against Honda and talking in very abstract terms here it would seem that Honda hasn’t fulfilled its obligation to Nicki and there is in a broad sense a breach of contract but I personally wouldn’t take them on, it’s just that Nicki gave his very best, did as much as he could for Honda and is now gracious and humble in departure whilst Honda have hardly fulfilled any obligation to Nicki to treat him all that well, I mean he gave them their only championship after Rossi. As soon as the gormless midget arrived he was screwed over and marginalised.
For what it’s worth I think the good relationship between he and Casey and the good relationship Ducati has had with Australian riders will benefit Nicki and he can give Pedrosa, Puig and Mr Honda the big “.... you”.
God I love the law, so ....... boring
From the Carlton United drinkers legal team
EDIT: How do you think Pedders and Puig got out of their Michelin contract?
See your PM.
