Abstract
In the author's submission, an employment contract can be frustrated at common law for cessation of its commercial purpose. Relying on the courts’ construction of employment contracts in the investment banking industry, the author finds that a bonus term goes to the root of a banker’s contract, which becomes frustrated when an external event such as the EU bonus cap prevents the bank from determining the value of the bonus as the parties reasonably expected at the time of formation of the contract. It follows that by operation of Section 1(3) of the Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943, the benefit that the employer has enjoyed by virtue of the employee's work in consideration of the prospective bonus should then be justly restituted. Contrary to the current legal interpretation of s 1(3), the employment context provides a unique illustration that the ‘benefit’ should be assessed objectively at the point of its receipt by the employer, and not after the frustrating event in order to ensure consistency with the underlying principle of unjust enrichment.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.