The reasons for fraudulent misrepresentation at the time of the contract are not at all a misrepresentation; All graduates are required to enter the loan. The reflection I had on the loan was this: the reflections they referred to in their response are all elements of the employment contract and are not in fact mentioned anywhere in the separate borrowing agreement. Check out our frequently asked questions for more information about our training. Or contact us to find out more about the type of training we offer. What kind of recourse could I have? And is this type of borrowing/agreement legally enforceable in the UK? We are often asked to develop this type of agreement for employers and to determine whether they are applicable. As usual, the answer to the question of whether the agreement is applicable is that it depends on the circumstances and how the agreement was developed. The applicability of a training reimbursement agreement can really be questioned on two legal grounds: first, because it is a punitive clause and, second, because it limits trade. I will look at them one after the other. You are probably arguing that you signed the loan and that, therefore, you are covered by point 2 or point 3, so I think that is the question of whether the loan is enforceable. Therefore, a company that will take legal action should show that it has suffered equal harm to its rights, such as.B. The costs incurred for the employee`s training and the fact that the employee went in the middle of a project, etc. Under the act, a provision whererminating a contracting party of the other party must pay a specified amount in the event of a particular event. B, for example, a breach or a worker who has deviated from his employment, is enforceable only if the amount the party must pay is a real estimate of the loss of the other party.
With respect to the impact of this doctrine on an agreement on the reimbursement of training costs, it will be up to the employer to demonstrate that the amount it wishes to reimburse by the employee is a real estimate of its loss. They ask for a significant amount to cover the costs of the training, as well as, citing, “potential income, so that an additional $3000 in fees are levied to compensate if you decide to leave prematurely.” I felt that this was not valid, because the potential loss of merit is not a valid reason for employers to claim compensation. Learn new skills and develop a sharp know-how with our highly practical training. Our experts can carry out tailor-made training around the world. I am trying to get evidence from the member who did not sign the training contract as an additional rebuttal to the first point. For more than 20 years, thanks to our attractive courses, we have been developing the careers of international development professionals. 1,665 people from 32 countries have improved their knowledge through our training in 2019. For example, if an employer sends someone on a course that costs the employer $2,000 and the worker leaves his or her job immediately after the end of the course, the employer has not benefited from his investment and could, through a duly drawn-in agreement, legally recover the $2,000. However, if the worker left his or her job after 3 years, then the employer clearly has the benefits of the training for 3 years, so that if they try to recover the $2000, that would be unenforceable, because it would not reflect the loss of the employer.