> . it's just that if you choose to leave before your term is up, you have to pay back the training cost pro-rata, and that sound very reasonable. This is pret

> . it's just that if you choose to leave before your term is up, you have to pay back the training cost pro-rata, and that sound very reasonable. This is pretty common [edit - in the UK], and there are distinctions made in law to stop this being abused (e.g. "if you leave you owe us a million for the basic training cost") [context, liquidated damages clauses are OK in an employment contract, penalty clauses are not] > Case law has clarified that in order for a clause to be a liquidated damages provision rather than a penalty, it must be a genuine reflection of an employer’s pre-estimate of loss that it is likely to suffer if the employee breaches that provision. If an employer is unable to quantify the exact loss that would be suffered, a best guess of the likely loss would be satisfactory. - See more at: http://rosenblatt-law.co.uk/bulletins/are-repayment-provisions-in-contracts-of-employment-unenforceable-penalties/#sthash.cvfHfrlu.dpuf http://rosenblatt-law.co.uk/bulletins/are-repayment-provisio... [snip] > The key to a repayment sum being regarded as a genuine pre-estimate of loss appears to be that the sum specified must be compensatory and not ‘in terroreum’ or simply a deterrent to breaching the contract - See more at: http://rosenblatt-law.co.uk/bulletins/are-repayment-provisions-in-contracts-of-employment-unenforceable-penalties/#sthash.cvfHfrlu.dpuf http://rosenblatt-law.co.uk/bulletins/are-repayment-provisio... http://rosenblatt-law.co.uk/bulletins/are-repayment-provisions-in-contracts-of-employment-unenforceable-penalties/ http://rosenblatt-law.co.uk/bulletins/are-repayment-provisio...