During the course of employment, an employee may be asked by their employer to sign a new or altered contract that has an effect on the terms and conditions of their employment. The courts have outlined the requirements needed for fresh consideration for these situations in order to protect the employee and allow for a legally enforceable contract to be formed. Techform Products Limited v Wolda (“Techform”) and Hobbs v TDI Canada Ltd (“Hobbs”) are two examples of how the courts interoperated the facts at hand in order to determine if the requirements of fresh consideration were met when a contract relating to employment was being formed. The cases vary in facts and their application to the law, resulting in different outcomes which allows for …show more content…
The law does not allow employers to rely on a continued employment relationship as fresh consideration when an employee is presented with a change in the terms of employment in addition to a threat of termination if they do not agree to said changes. However, the courts have found that continued employment combined with either forbearance from dismissal for a reasonable period of time or some other incentive is adequate for the requirement of fresh consideration. When examining the relevant facts of Techform in comparison to Hobbs there is an apparent difference in the two cases that caused to courts to have different findings of fact in relation to the requirements of fresh …show more content…
As outlined in the facts of this case, when presenting the ETA to Wolda, Techform promised to forbear from dismissing Wolda for a reasonable period of time if he had alternatively chosen to not sign the ETA. Therefore, relating back to the previously outlined requirements of fresh consideration, there was consideration for the ETA because the continued employment of Wolda was combined with the forbearance of termination. Techform did not simply threaten to terminate Wolda’s employment if he elected to not sign the ETA, they fulfilled their required promise of forbearance of termination and therefore consideration was given when Wolda did eventually agree to the terms of the ETA. In a similar way as Techform, Hobbs v TDI Canada Ltd also deals with the requirements needed for fresh consideration in relation to an employment contract. In this case the appellant Allan Hobbs had accepted a sales position based on commission with the respondent, TDI Canada Ltd (“TDI”). Hobbs later discovered that his commission would not be paid as expected and initiated this case claiming for unpaid commission, while TDI argued that Hobbs’ entitlement to commission was restricted by the terms of an agreement he has signed shortly after being hired by the