The case on Dr. Shakida Britchett has several issues involving contract law. To start with, there is the issue of determining whether Dr. Britchett actions were conducted “in the course of employment” or not. This will be paramount in determining who is entitled to the ownership of the intellectual property rights involved.
Another relevant issue is that of Dr. Britchett treating patients outside the required scope of operation. Can this issue be referred to as a breach of contract? This is highly dependent on how the entire activity was being undertaken. Does the treatment of these patients occur during the stipulated work hours? Does she treat the patients using the company’s resources? Answering such questions would help in evaluating Dr. Britchett’s obligations towards the company and her fulfillment of those obligations. Breach of contract is normally served with consequences for any party involved in the contract.
The effects of express terms in a contract can be viewed as a relevant issue in this case too. This regards the details about intellectual property as expressed in Dr. Britchett’s employment contract. Dr. Britchett’s act of treating patients while in holiday is also a relevant issue that needs assessment to ensure whether it affects her status of the course of employment.
Several legal principles pertaining to contract law can be applied in this case. To begin with, the employee-employer relationship tends to set the foundations of implied obligations under the employment contract (Sappideen et al., 2016, p. 138). Patents Act 1990 (Cth), s 15(1) asserts that a company can apply for a patent for an invention that has been created by the employees in the course of employment. However, the Act does not explicitly designate the employer’s right to inventions developed by employees. Patents Act 1990 (Cth), s 15(1)(b) outlines that the employer’s claim to the intellectual property rights of such invention
To view this post and other posts in this category please pay the amount below