3 ms·

> As far as I can see it is a 'contract', they said if you do 'x' they'll re-imburse you, you did 'x', they should pay up. I'm not a lawyer, though I do think

> As far as I can see it is a 'contract', they said if you do 'x' they'll re-imburse you, you did 'x', they should pay up. I'm not a lawyer, though I do think you are right in this instance. One thing to keep in mind though is that if an employee does not have the authorization to make such an agreement then the company isn't liable. I forget the legal term for this type of person, agent comes to mind.

jacquesm 16y ago
> One thing to keep in mind though is that if an employee does not have the authorization to make such an agreement then the company isn't liable. I don't think that it is that simple. If a worker for the city cleaning department comes up to you and offers to sell you a small building the city owns then yes, the city is not bound because you can assume that he has no such authorization. But if the mayor of the town would make you an offer to buy a small building the city owns (in writing) then you'd definitely have a case of sorts, even if it turned out afterwards that he did not have the authority. It's all about the expectations of authority on the part of the recipient, if those expectations are in line with the function of the other party. And in this case it is perfectly ok to assume that if an HR person from a company offers to re-imburse you for your costs if you make the trip that they will actually do so.
- andyjdavis 16y ago
  as always, Im not a lawyer. It may vary where you are but in Australia if its reasonable for you to believe the employee has the authority to make such an agreement then its binding (everything else being equal). The employee's actual authority isn't relevant. Otherwise people saying "oh, they didn't have the authority" becomes an instant way to wriggle out of any deal after the fact and contracts everywhere become worthless. Side note: this is one of the big reasons why big companies are so strict in their rules about low ranking employees speaking to anyone within their premises or while wearing anything identifying you as employee. It suggests you are an agent of the company and thus speak for the company. When I worked in a large supermarket chain many years ago all staff but store management were absolutely forbidden from speaking to anyone about pretty much anything because we were agents of the company and thus could be presumed to be speaking for the company.

jacquesm 16y ago

> One thing to keep in mind though is that if an employee does not have the authorization to make such an agreement then the company isn't liable. I don't think that it is that simple. If a worker for the city cleaning department comes up to you and offers to sell you a small building the city owns then yes, the city is not bound because you can assume that he has no such authorization. But if the mayor of the town would make you an offer to buy a small building the city owns (in writing) then you'd definitely have a case of sorts, even if it turned out afterwards that he did not have the authority. It's all about the expectations of authority on the part of the recipient, if those expectations are in line with the function of the other party. And in this case it is perfectly ok to assume that if an HR person from a company offers to re-imburse you for your costs if you make the trip that they will actually do so.

andyjdavis 16y ago
as always, Im not a lawyer. It may vary where you are but in Australia if its reasonable for you to believe the employee has the authority to make such an agreement then its binding (everything else being equal). The employee's actual authority isn't relevant. Otherwise people saying "oh, they didn't have the authority" becomes an instant way to wriggle out of any deal after the fact and contracts everywhere become worthless. Side note: this is one of the big reasons why big companies are so strict in their rules about low ranking employees speaking to anyone within their premises or while wearing anything identifying you as employee. It suggests you are an agent of the company and thus speak for the company. When I worked in a large supermarket chain many years ago all staff but store management were absolutely forbidden from speaking to anyone about pretty much anything because we were agents of the company and thus could be presumed to be speaking for the company.