A contract is an agreement between two persons, parties that states what each must do/ give or not do/ to the other. For any contract to be valid it must have the following elements which are basically what constitutes a contract with the goal of achieving common good of parties involved. The elements and their objectives include;
- Two parties both of which must be of sound mind. This is to ensure sober decisions as well as no party is exploited. Minors cannot engage in a contract since they do not have adequate documents to fully identify themselves like National Identity cards. People involved in crimes such as murderers are not allowed to enter into contracts to ensure safety of the parties at hand (Mulcahy, 2008). This helps promote ultimate good faith of both parties.
- The subject or object that is being agreed upon must never violate any public policy for example sale of illegal drugs. Any illegal act is prohibited. This is to ensure protection, safety and wellness of the parties and entire public (Richards, 2009).
- Mutual consent of both parties. An agreement is reached to strike a deal. The validity of this element is seen in the light of both parties having written documents bearing their correct full names, ID numbers and signatures. Thus commitment is guaranteed and cases of one being swindled are minimized. However the mutual agreement should not be through coercion, force or fraud. There must be mutual communication based on propagating goodness of both parties. In addition it enhances delivery of justice to both parties (Mulcahy, 2008).
- Mutual consideration whereby both parties trade off something of value. This means one is obliged to abide to conditions and terms laid in the contract. An example is that one might be required to deliver goods to his client before any payment is made. This ensures both parties attain a fair deal through fair input (Mulcahy, 2008).
In the above the mentioned case I deliberately choose to concur with the judge that there was no contract binding both parties. A contract becomes a contract or valid whereby there is considerate mutual exchange from both parties. In this case, there is an imbalance in that the complainant wanted double benefit that is soft drink and a Harrier jet. Still, his input was a far miniature compared to the price of the jet. Thus it was an unfair deal.
Still, the contract is invalid. This is clearly seen whereby there was no formal setting and communication on both parties to mutually agree on the subject. Both parties were not committed in that there were no any legal documents binding them together. In addition to this the contract is not enforcing the interest of both parties. The plaintiff was only fraudulent in that he raised money by involving third parties and only contributed only 15 points which was not tantamount to jet price (Richards, 2009).Want an expert to write a paper for you Talk to an operator now
An advertisement cannot be considered as an offer since it uses persuasion to increase it sales. One is also free to incline since there is no tie between parties.
An advertisement differs from a reward in that the later has mutual consent of both parties, enhances common interest while in advertisement is vice versa.
I defend the statement that drug use is information that is rightfully private and only in exceptional cases can an employer claim a right to know about such use whether it’s illegal or prescribed drugs.
Every one is entitled to the right of privacy. No employer should demand to know the drugs that his employees are taking. The employer should not be put at fix as long as he or she is delivering quality services. However in the case of illegal drugs like cocaine, they can be checked since they will ultimately affect ones output. The illicit drugs affect ones judgment to make sound decisions that can affect the wellbeing of the employees as well as the organization. This can be in terms of health safety, emotional and social wellbeing as well as disclosure of company’s and employees’ sensitive information. Still these drugs have a negative adverse influence on other workers who are not using them incase one inhales them (Levy, 2006).
As for drugs like tobacco, or caffeine, then an employee should not be subjected to these rigorous drug testing procedures as long as one is performing quite satisfactory, one does not need to be exposed to these tests. They only add up to company’s expenses which later trickle down to its employees in terms of subsidized salaries. It is also time consuming to the companies involved as well cumbersome to the employees. Again, the workers feel harassed whereby they feel being monitored to maintain a job (Steingold, 2009).
As for the prescribed drugs, there is absolutely no need to intrude to the privacy of the employees especially in jobs that are not sensitive. It is more or less like belittling the human resources. This should only occur under the consent of the staff volunteering the information. It must never be mandatory for employers to recruit personnel by subjecting them to prescribed drug test. Nobody should demand to know the health condition of an individual unless his or her health would be compromised. Nobody should be discriminated by not being offered a job in the light of taking drugs that are a pointer towards a certain illness like anti retro viral drugs in the case of HIV/AIDS. These drugs should be encouraged by all means as long as they are given on medical grounds. This is because they promote employee’s health thus become productive (Steingold, 2009).
However, the only maybe applicable cases are whereby employees should be tested is in the very sensitive jobs like a pilot or a surgeon since they pose a dreadful threat incase of slight under performance. In such a scenario both illegal drugs as well as prescribed drugs should be brought to attention. The illegal ones will definitely affect their work which consequently would lead to terrible outcome. As for the prescribed drugs, one should be checked if the drugs one is taking have chemicals that are detrimental to their sensitive work in terms of ones safety and job performance. There should not be a record of the prescribed drugs but an evaluation of chemicals contained in the drugs which should be done by a special doctor but not the employer to avoid violation of ones privacy (Steingold, 2009).
In conclusion, employee’s health status should remain personal unless incase of his and company’s safety.