Subject to Contract

Diamondmaker

This is controversial statement often used by builders to "gazump".
ie if "contracts" are signed with deposit and this is stated within the terms, a contract does not actually exist.
When the building is ready the builder then reserves the right to ask a new price. This has been discussed many times on AAM and tested in court held in the builders favour.

I wish to confirm that if this statement is attached to another form of contract, such as an employment contract.
That regardless of this statement the contract is completed by the employee going to work for the employer and receiving a wage for several months. ie...
Offer of job, acceptance by going to work and acceptance by employer by making paymnets of wages.

Does this now make the subject to contract statment printed on the contract irrelevant?

The difference here from the previous ex I give is that the contract never closed as the propoerty never changed hands and the builder never ACTUALLY accepted the offer.
But in the 2nd case the contract did close as the employer paid a wage for many months.

Am I correct in this reasoning.

thanks any legal eagles
DM

Victor

Both the bahavior of the parties and statute law say there is a contract. The employer may actually be breaking the law by not providing a written contract.

Ava

doesnt apply to employment contracts.

sale of land is one of 4 categories which require terms of contract to be in writing and signed otherwise unenforceable
(though not void)