If a company agrees to pay travel cost for a job interview, is the promise binding and enforceable?
There is a question on workplace.SE about a company which offered to pay travel costs for a job interview, but canceled the return ticket after ending the interview - Potential Employer Cancels Return Flight.
Generally, when arranging a job interview which requires the candidate to travel, it is common for the potential employer to pay travel cost and lodging for the candidate. In practice, the employer will ususally offer this, often in writing, but not write up a formal contract or similar document.
In that situation, can the employer later renege on the promise to pay costs? In particular, can they renege after the candidate has begun their journey, thus saddling the candidate with the travel cost?
My thoughts:
- On the one hand, a simple one-sided promise is usually not binding, as a binding agreement requires both sides to give something (called consideration in Common law).
- On the other hand, there is the notion of detrimental reliance, which appears to fit here. Also, one could argue that the candidate does provide something in exchange, namely their presence and willingness to attend the interview (basically, the company trades travel costs for having the candidate present for the interview).
So, is the promise to pay the candidate's cost enforceable or not?
Im interested in any jurisdiction, particularly European and US.
contract-law employment
add a comment |
There is a question on workplace.SE about a company which offered to pay travel costs for a job interview, but canceled the return ticket after ending the interview - Potential Employer Cancels Return Flight.
Generally, when arranging a job interview which requires the candidate to travel, it is common for the potential employer to pay travel cost and lodging for the candidate. In practice, the employer will ususally offer this, often in writing, but not write up a formal contract or similar document.
In that situation, can the employer later renege on the promise to pay costs? In particular, can they renege after the candidate has begun their journey, thus saddling the candidate with the travel cost?
My thoughts:
- On the one hand, a simple one-sided promise is usually not binding, as a binding agreement requires both sides to give something (called consideration in Common law).
- On the other hand, there is the notion of detrimental reliance, which appears to fit here. Also, one could argue that the candidate does provide something in exchange, namely their presence and willingness to attend the interview (basically, the company trades travel costs for having the candidate present for the interview).
So, is the promise to pay the candidate's cost enforceable or not?
Im interested in any jurisdiction, particularly European and US.
contract-law employment
4
In addition to "legally" there's also the problem of "effectively". In some jurisdictions the company are liable for costs incurred while making them pay up. In others they aren't. On top of that you get a second case against them if you can prove that they didn't simply renege on a contract, but did maliciously take action to cause damage (economic and otherwise) to yourself.
– Peter
2 days ago
Wow, this is now the second-highest voted question on law.SE. I'd never thought a question about such a (hopefully) rare problem would be so popular. Thanks everyone :-).
– sleske
7 hours ago
add a comment |
There is a question on workplace.SE about a company which offered to pay travel costs for a job interview, but canceled the return ticket after ending the interview - Potential Employer Cancels Return Flight.
Generally, when arranging a job interview which requires the candidate to travel, it is common for the potential employer to pay travel cost and lodging for the candidate. In practice, the employer will ususally offer this, often in writing, but not write up a formal contract or similar document.
In that situation, can the employer later renege on the promise to pay costs? In particular, can they renege after the candidate has begun their journey, thus saddling the candidate with the travel cost?
My thoughts:
- On the one hand, a simple one-sided promise is usually not binding, as a binding agreement requires both sides to give something (called consideration in Common law).
- On the other hand, there is the notion of detrimental reliance, which appears to fit here. Also, one could argue that the candidate does provide something in exchange, namely their presence and willingness to attend the interview (basically, the company trades travel costs for having the candidate present for the interview).
So, is the promise to pay the candidate's cost enforceable or not?
Im interested in any jurisdiction, particularly European and US.
contract-law employment
There is a question on workplace.SE about a company which offered to pay travel costs for a job interview, but canceled the return ticket after ending the interview - Potential Employer Cancels Return Flight.
Generally, when arranging a job interview which requires the candidate to travel, it is common for the potential employer to pay travel cost and lodging for the candidate. In practice, the employer will ususally offer this, often in writing, but not write up a formal contract or similar document.
In that situation, can the employer later renege on the promise to pay costs? In particular, can they renege after the candidate has begun their journey, thus saddling the candidate with the travel cost?
My thoughts:
- On the one hand, a simple one-sided promise is usually not binding, as a binding agreement requires both sides to give something (called consideration in Common law).
- On the other hand, there is the notion of detrimental reliance, which appears to fit here. Also, one could argue that the candidate does provide something in exchange, namely their presence and willingness to attend the interview (basically, the company trades travel costs for having the candidate present for the interview).
So, is the promise to pay the candidate's cost enforceable or not?
Im interested in any jurisdiction, particularly European and US.
contract-law employment
contract-law employment
asked 2 days ago
sleskesleske
3,3302934
3,3302934
4
In addition to "legally" there's also the problem of "effectively". In some jurisdictions the company are liable for costs incurred while making them pay up. In others they aren't. On top of that you get a second case against them if you can prove that they didn't simply renege on a contract, but did maliciously take action to cause damage (economic and otherwise) to yourself.
– Peter
2 days ago
Wow, this is now the second-highest voted question on law.SE. I'd never thought a question about such a (hopefully) rare problem would be so popular. Thanks everyone :-).
– sleske
7 hours ago
add a comment |
4
In addition to "legally" there's also the problem of "effectively". In some jurisdictions the company are liable for costs incurred while making them pay up. In others they aren't. On top of that you get a second case against them if you can prove that they didn't simply renege on a contract, but did maliciously take action to cause damage (economic and otherwise) to yourself.
– Peter
2 days ago
Wow, this is now the second-highest voted question on law.SE. I'd never thought a question about such a (hopefully) rare problem would be so popular. Thanks everyone :-).
– sleske
7 hours ago
4
4
In addition to "legally" there's also the problem of "effectively". In some jurisdictions the company are liable for costs incurred while making them pay up. In others they aren't. On top of that you get a second case against them if you can prove that they didn't simply renege on a contract, but did maliciously take action to cause damage (economic and otherwise) to yourself.
– Peter
2 days ago
In addition to "legally" there's also the problem of "effectively". In some jurisdictions the company are liable for costs incurred while making them pay up. In others they aren't. On top of that you get a second case against them if you can prove that they didn't simply renege on a contract, but did maliciously take action to cause damage (economic and otherwise) to yourself.
– Peter
2 days ago
Wow, this is now the second-highest voted question on law.SE. I'd never thought a question about such a (hopefully) rare problem would be so popular. Thanks everyone :-).
– sleske
7 hours ago
Wow, this is now the second-highest voted question on law.SE. I'd never thought a question about such a (hopefully) rare problem would be so popular. Thanks everyone :-).
– sleske
7 hours ago
add a comment |
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
This aspect (and many others) of contract law is applicable in the US and various countries of the EU.
can they renege after the candidate has begun their journey, thus
saddling the candidate with the travel cost?
No. The company would incur breach of contract.
There is no need for a formal contract. The candidate only needs to prove that the company agreed (in writing, orally or clearly through its conduct) to cover or reimburse those expenses and that this elicited a meeting of the minds.
The agreement would be void only if the candidate incurred the expenses despite knowing (via timely notice) that the company changed its mind.
Likewise, if the candidate lied on his CV, the contract (here, the company's agreement to cover the expenses) would be voidable by the company, since the candidate's intentional misrepresentations preclude the aforementioned condition of meeting of the minds.
a binding agreement requires both sides to give something
Here, the candidate's consideration is his time and effort to accommodate the company's interest in assessing the candidate's profile at a location that is convenient to the company.
32
The last line is true. The alternative is to fly the manager and one other person out there to perform the interview convenient for the candidate. I'm sure most companies will just fly the candidate instead.
– Nelson
2 days ago
17
What if the contract was entered based on fraud and during the interview you find out the candidate lied on their CV?
– David Mulder
2 days ago
9
@DavidMulder I think that could be a good followup question. I think it's a bit too complex to fit in as a small side-note here, and I wouldn't want to muddle this question with a substantial discussion of hypotheticals.
– Kamil Drakari
2 days ago
10
@DavidMulder If the candidate lied on his CV, then the contract (here, the company's agreement to cover the expenses) is voidable by the company, since the candidate's intentional misrepresentations preclude the aforementioned condition of meeting of the minds.
– Iñaki Viggers
2 days ago
13
On another different line of thinking, how much would the company recover from cancelling hours before the flight? Last I checked you get back something like 10%? No more than 25% at most.
– Nelson
2 days ago
|
show 10 more comments
Yes the promise is binding and enforceable because of the reasons you mentioned (your consideration is making yourself available at the company's premises, and, should that not be convincing enough, detrimental reliance wipes out any doubt). You have a perfectly valid contract here.
However, a perfectly valid contract means that both parties need to perform as they represented they will, and both can be entitled to damages should the other party fail to fulfill their obligations.
If you made false representations prior to them booking the flights/accommodation (including, but not limited to lying on the CV), the company's damages may be not just what they paid to see you face to face, but also their time (which is, you know, money) and missed opportunities in hiring other candidates (which they would have invited instead of you). In this situation, should the case go to court, you are highly likely to end up owing them.
So, if you are sure that you did not make false representations and, otherwise, are not in breach of this contract, then you have a great opportunity not only to get your unexpected expenses reimbursed, but also name/shame the company and give them a great lesson. Otherwise, consider yourself lucky they are not doing the same to you.
add a comment |
As the question specifically asks for different jurisdictions, i'd like to weigh in with my interpretation of German law:
§670 of the Civil Code (source in German) (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, BGB) should be applicable.
It states, that a person who designates another person to do something, is required to reimburse any expenses that the other person was allowed - according to the circumstances - to consider necessary. ("Macht der Beauftragte zum Zwecke der Ausführung des Auftrags Aufwendungen, die er den Umständen nach für erforderlich halten darf, so ist der Auftraggeber zum Ersatz verpflichtet.")
§669 of the Civil Code (source in German) (BGB) makes it clear, that the designated person can claim the necessary expenses in advance. ("Für die zur Ausführung des Auftrags erforderlichen Aufwendungen hat der Auftraggeber dem Beauftragten auf Verlangen Vorschuss zu leisten.")
These conditions are probably negotiable, but without another agreement they are the default regulation.
Thus, if a company invites someone, without making it reasonably clear in advance that they won't pay for expenses, they are legally obligated to pay.
New contributor
add a comment |
There are several times I've had interviews where I did not lie on my CV/Resume but did not fit the bill. However, when I got to the interview the job description was misleading or off, or they asked questions that were no were related to the job description.
People here are blaming you without actually having any information to back that up. Also, I believe that there is no excuse to strand someone like that and in a court, you will be able to hold the upper hand here. I suggest contacting a lawyer and finding out your options.
I've done several interviews where I flew somewhere, bombed the interview, and still was able to get home safely. What the company did was place your health, safety, and financial situation in jeopardy. Regardless of the situation, no company should just strand someone like that. It's petty and immature and I personally would never want to work for a company like that.
New contributor
21
I agree with your comments, but I don't think they answer the OP's question here.
– ruakh
yesterday
I tried to provide personal insight as well as an answer. Regardless of what others are saying, there is no excuse of just stranding someone. If they felt they were defrauded they could have taken the person to court after he got home. Stranding him like that just ruined any case the company had against the person.
– Daniel Shafer
yesterday
1
@DanielShafer there certainly is, actually... If the person fundamentally misrepresented themselves and their skills, they are not only on the hook for the ride home, but to reimburse the company for the part of thir trip which was paid, possibly triple damages on that if fraud can be proven. The company may have done them a favor by cutting the amount of damages that could be tripled.
– Harper
18 hours ago
2
@DanielShafer "there is no excuse" in your comment seems to be addressing the moral (versus legal) side of the story. Even then that is arguable if, for example, the job applicant blatantly lied just to get a free return ride (not claiming that is the case with the OP, just hypothetical): canceling the return flight would be a very good lesson the company could give to the liar and time waster (of course, provided that it does not endanger him; "stranding" at a city airport would hardly be putting him in danger).
– Greendrake
18 hours ago
@Greendrake stranding someone can put them into financial ruin if they lack the means to return to their normal life and thus lose their job. That is not danger per se, but close enough.
– Chieron
2 hours ago
add a comment |
Under UK law you can recover any costs from them. You will need some basic evidence, such as emails or letters where they state they will fly you home.
Your costs are things you would not have had to pay if they had not stranded you. Food costs above what it costs you to eat at home, any services like hotels, showers, wifi etc, and of course your greyhound ticket and whatever it cost your friend in petrol. In fact you should claim mileage (typically 50p/mile) for your friend's car, plus any time they had off work.
If you were unable to work any days you should claim you full day rate too.
Add interest, any bank charges you had (e.g. credit card interest, overdrafts) and the like.
Small Claims Court is probably your best bet. It's cheap, you can do it online and you don't need a lawyer. Just turn up and explain what happened to the judge. Best of all it will be your local court, so if they want to defend themselves they will have to send someone or hire a local lawyer. The judge will by sympathetic and helpful, and not expect you to be a legal expert.
Small Claims court has a maximum claim of £10,000.
You can also claim for your suffering. It's difficult to put a precise figure on what you should get for your ordeal, but three days in an airport and having to eat scraps... I'd suggest £3000 as a starting point (£1000/day), assuming it doesn't push your total claim over the £10,000 mark.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "617"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flaw.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f36259%2fif-a-company-agrees-to-pay-travel-cost-for-a-job-interview-is-the-promise-bindi%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
This aspect (and many others) of contract law is applicable in the US and various countries of the EU.
can they renege after the candidate has begun their journey, thus
saddling the candidate with the travel cost?
No. The company would incur breach of contract.
There is no need for a formal contract. The candidate only needs to prove that the company agreed (in writing, orally or clearly through its conduct) to cover or reimburse those expenses and that this elicited a meeting of the minds.
The agreement would be void only if the candidate incurred the expenses despite knowing (via timely notice) that the company changed its mind.
Likewise, if the candidate lied on his CV, the contract (here, the company's agreement to cover the expenses) would be voidable by the company, since the candidate's intentional misrepresentations preclude the aforementioned condition of meeting of the minds.
a binding agreement requires both sides to give something
Here, the candidate's consideration is his time and effort to accommodate the company's interest in assessing the candidate's profile at a location that is convenient to the company.
32
The last line is true. The alternative is to fly the manager and one other person out there to perform the interview convenient for the candidate. I'm sure most companies will just fly the candidate instead.
– Nelson
2 days ago
17
What if the contract was entered based on fraud and during the interview you find out the candidate lied on their CV?
– David Mulder
2 days ago
9
@DavidMulder I think that could be a good followup question. I think it's a bit too complex to fit in as a small side-note here, and I wouldn't want to muddle this question with a substantial discussion of hypotheticals.
– Kamil Drakari
2 days ago
10
@DavidMulder If the candidate lied on his CV, then the contract (here, the company's agreement to cover the expenses) is voidable by the company, since the candidate's intentional misrepresentations preclude the aforementioned condition of meeting of the minds.
– Iñaki Viggers
2 days ago
13
On another different line of thinking, how much would the company recover from cancelling hours before the flight? Last I checked you get back something like 10%? No more than 25% at most.
– Nelson
2 days ago
|
show 10 more comments
This aspect (and many others) of contract law is applicable in the US and various countries of the EU.
can they renege after the candidate has begun their journey, thus
saddling the candidate with the travel cost?
No. The company would incur breach of contract.
There is no need for a formal contract. The candidate only needs to prove that the company agreed (in writing, orally or clearly through its conduct) to cover or reimburse those expenses and that this elicited a meeting of the minds.
The agreement would be void only if the candidate incurred the expenses despite knowing (via timely notice) that the company changed its mind.
Likewise, if the candidate lied on his CV, the contract (here, the company's agreement to cover the expenses) would be voidable by the company, since the candidate's intentional misrepresentations preclude the aforementioned condition of meeting of the minds.
a binding agreement requires both sides to give something
Here, the candidate's consideration is his time and effort to accommodate the company's interest in assessing the candidate's profile at a location that is convenient to the company.
32
The last line is true. The alternative is to fly the manager and one other person out there to perform the interview convenient for the candidate. I'm sure most companies will just fly the candidate instead.
– Nelson
2 days ago
17
What if the contract was entered based on fraud and during the interview you find out the candidate lied on their CV?
– David Mulder
2 days ago
9
@DavidMulder I think that could be a good followup question. I think it's a bit too complex to fit in as a small side-note here, and I wouldn't want to muddle this question with a substantial discussion of hypotheticals.
– Kamil Drakari
2 days ago
10
@DavidMulder If the candidate lied on his CV, then the contract (here, the company's agreement to cover the expenses) is voidable by the company, since the candidate's intentional misrepresentations preclude the aforementioned condition of meeting of the minds.
– Iñaki Viggers
2 days ago
13
On another different line of thinking, how much would the company recover from cancelling hours before the flight? Last I checked you get back something like 10%? No more than 25% at most.
– Nelson
2 days ago
|
show 10 more comments
This aspect (and many others) of contract law is applicable in the US and various countries of the EU.
can they renege after the candidate has begun their journey, thus
saddling the candidate with the travel cost?
No. The company would incur breach of contract.
There is no need for a formal contract. The candidate only needs to prove that the company agreed (in writing, orally or clearly through its conduct) to cover or reimburse those expenses and that this elicited a meeting of the minds.
The agreement would be void only if the candidate incurred the expenses despite knowing (via timely notice) that the company changed its mind.
Likewise, if the candidate lied on his CV, the contract (here, the company's agreement to cover the expenses) would be voidable by the company, since the candidate's intentional misrepresentations preclude the aforementioned condition of meeting of the minds.
a binding agreement requires both sides to give something
Here, the candidate's consideration is his time and effort to accommodate the company's interest in assessing the candidate's profile at a location that is convenient to the company.
This aspect (and many others) of contract law is applicable in the US and various countries of the EU.
can they renege after the candidate has begun their journey, thus
saddling the candidate with the travel cost?
No. The company would incur breach of contract.
There is no need for a formal contract. The candidate only needs to prove that the company agreed (in writing, orally or clearly through its conduct) to cover or reimburse those expenses and that this elicited a meeting of the minds.
The agreement would be void only if the candidate incurred the expenses despite knowing (via timely notice) that the company changed its mind.
Likewise, if the candidate lied on his CV, the contract (here, the company's agreement to cover the expenses) would be voidable by the company, since the candidate's intentional misrepresentations preclude the aforementioned condition of meeting of the minds.
a binding agreement requires both sides to give something
Here, the candidate's consideration is his time and effort to accommodate the company's interest in assessing the candidate's profile at a location that is convenient to the company.
edited yesterday
answered 2 days ago
Iñaki ViggersIñaki Viggers
7,09621024
7,09621024
32
The last line is true. The alternative is to fly the manager and one other person out there to perform the interview convenient for the candidate. I'm sure most companies will just fly the candidate instead.
– Nelson
2 days ago
17
What if the contract was entered based on fraud and during the interview you find out the candidate lied on their CV?
– David Mulder
2 days ago
9
@DavidMulder I think that could be a good followup question. I think it's a bit too complex to fit in as a small side-note here, and I wouldn't want to muddle this question with a substantial discussion of hypotheticals.
– Kamil Drakari
2 days ago
10
@DavidMulder If the candidate lied on his CV, then the contract (here, the company's agreement to cover the expenses) is voidable by the company, since the candidate's intentional misrepresentations preclude the aforementioned condition of meeting of the minds.
– Iñaki Viggers
2 days ago
13
On another different line of thinking, how much would the company recover from cancelling hours before the flight? Last I checked you get back something like 10%? No more than 25% at most.
– Nelson
2 days ago
|
show 10 more comments
32
The last line is true. The alternative is to fly the manager and one other person out there to perform the interview convenient for the candidate. I'm sure most companies will just fly the candidate instead.
– Nelson
2 days ago
17
What if the contract was entered based on fraud and during the interview you find out the candidate lied on their CV?
– David Mulder
2 days ago
9
@DavidMulder I think that could be a good followup question. I think it's a bit too complex to fit in as a small side-note here, and I wouldn't want to muddle this question with a substantial discussion of hypotheticals.
– Kamil Drakari
2 days ago
10
@DavidMulder If the candidate lied on his CV, then the contract (here, the company's agreement to cover the expenses) is voidable by the company, since the candidate's intentional misrepresentations preclude the aforementioned condition of meeting of the minds.
– Iñaki Viggers
2 days ago
13
On another different line of thinking, how much would the company recover from cancelling hours before the flight? Last I checked you get back something like 10%? No more than 25% at most.
– Nelson
2 days ago
32
32
The last line is true. The alternative is to fly the manager and one other person out there to perform the interview convenient for the candidate. I'm sure most companies will just fly the candidate instead.
– Nelson
2 days ago
The last line is true. The alternative is to fly the manager and one other person out there to perform the interview convenient for the candidate. I'm sure most companies will just fly the candidate instead.
– Nelson
2 days ago
17
17
What if the contract was entered based on fraud and during the interview you find out the candidate lied on their CV?
– David Mulder
2 days ago
What if the contract was entered based on fraud and during the interview you find out the candidate lied on their CV?
– David Mulder
2 days ago
9
9
@DavidMulder I think that could be a good followup question. I think it's a bit too complex to fit in as a small side-note here, and I wouldn't want to muddle this question with a substantial discussion of hypotheticals.
– Kamil Drakari
2 days ago
@DavidMulder I think that could be a good followup question. I think it's a bit too complex to fit in as a small side-note here, and I wouldn't want to muddle this question with a substantial discussion of hypotheticals.
– Kamil Drakari
2 days ago
10
10
@DavidMulder If the candidate lied on his CV, then the contract (here, the company's agreement to cover the expenses) is voidable by the company, since the candidate's intentional misrepresentations preclude the aforementioned condition of meeting of the minds.
– Iñaki Viggers
2 days ago
@DavidMulder If the candidate lied on his CV, then the contract (here, the company's agreement to cover the expenses) is voidable by the company, since the candidate's intentional misrepresentations preclude the aforementioned condition of meeting of the minds.
– Iñaki Viggers
2 days ago
13
13
On another different line of thinking, how much would the company recover from cancelling hours before the flight? Last I checked you get back something like 10%? No more than 25% at most.
– Nelson
2 days ago
On another different line of thinking, how much would the company recover from cancelling hours before the flight? Last I checked you get back something like 10%? No more than 25% at most.
– Nelson
2 days ago
|
show 10 more comments
Yes the promise is binding and enforceable because of the reasons you mentioned (your consideration is making yourself available at the company's premises, and, should that not be convincing enough, detrimental reliance wipes out any doubt). You have a perfectly valid contract here.
However, a perfectly valid contract means that both parties need to perform as they represented they will, and both can be entitled to damages should the other party fail to fulfill their obligations.
If you made false representations prior to them booking the flights/accommodation (including, but not limited to lying on the CV), the company's damages may be not just what they paid to see you face to face, but also their time (which is, you know, money) and missed opportunities in hiring other candidates (which they would have invited instead of you). In this situation, should the case go to court, you are highly likely to end up owing them.
So, if you are sure that you did not make false representations and, otherwise, are not in breach of this contract, then you have a great opportunity not only to get your unexpected expenses reimbursed, but also name/shame the company and give them a great lesson. Otherwise, consider yourself lucky they are not doing the same to you.
add a comment |
Yes the promise is binding and enforceable because of the reasons you mentioned (your consideration is making yourself available at the company's premises, and, should that not be convincing enough, detrimental reliance wipes out any doubt). You have a perfectly valid contract here.
However, a perfectly valid contract means that both parties need to perform as they represented they will, and both can be entitled to damages should the other party fail to fulfill their obligations.
If you made false representations prior to them booking the flights/accommodation (including, but not limited to lying on the CV), the company's damages may be not just what they paid to see you face to face, but also their time (which is, you know, money) and missed opportunities in hiring other candidates (which they would have invited instead of you). In this situation, should the case go to court, you are highly likely to end up owing them.
So, if you are sure that you did not make false representations and, otherwise, are not in breach of this contract, then you have a great opportunity not only to get your unexpected expenses reimbursed, but also name/shame the company and give them a great lesson. Otherwise, consider yourself lucky they are not doing the same to you.
add a comment |
Yes the promise is binding and enforceable because of the reasons you mentioned (your consideration is making yourself available at the company's premises, and, should that not be convincing enough, detrimental reliance wipes out any doubt). You have a perfectly valid contract here.
However, a perfectly valid contract means that both parties need to perform as they represented they will, and both can be entitled to damages should the other party fail to fulfill their obligations.
If you made false representations prior to them booking the flights/accommodation (including, but not limited to lying on the CV), the company's damages may be not just what they paid to see you face to face, but also their time (which is, you know, money) and missed opportunities in hiring other candidates (which they would have invited instead of you). In this situation, should the case go to court, you are highly likely to end up owing them.
So, if you are sure that you did not make false representations and, otherwise, are not in breach of this contract, then you have a great opportunity not only to get your unexpected expenses reimbursed, but also name/shame the company and give them a great lesson. Otherwise, consider yourself lucky they are not doing the same to you.
Yes the promise is binding and enforceable because of the reasons you mentioned (your consideration is making yourself available at the company's premises, and, should that not be convincing enough, detrimental reliance wipes out any doubt). You have a perfectly valid contract here.
However, a perfectly valid contract means that both parties need to perform as they represented they will, and both can be entitled to damages should the other party fail to fulfill their obligations.
If you made false representations prior to them booking the flights/accommodation (including, but not limited to lying on the CV), the company's damages may be not just what they paid to see you face to face, but also their time (which is, you know, money) and missed opportunities in hiring other candidates (which they would have invited instead of you). In this situation, should the case go to court, you are highly likely to end up owing them.
So, if you are sure that you did not make false representations and, otherwise, are not in breach of this contract, then you have a great opportunity not only to get your unexpected expenses reimbursed, but also name/shame the company and give them a great lesson. Otherwise, consider yourself lucky they are not doing the same to you.
answered yesterday
GreendrakeGreendrake
2,5951821
2,5951821
add a comment |
add a comment |
As the question specifically asks for different jurisdictions, i'd like to weigh in with my interpretation of German law:
§670 of the Civil Code (source in German) (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, BGB) should be applicable.
It states, that a person who designates another person to do something, is required to reimburse any expenses that the other person was allowed - according to the circumstances - to consider necessary. ("Macht der Beauftragte zum Zwecke der Ausführung des Auftrags Aufwendungen, die er den Umständen nach für erforderlich halten darf, so ist der Auftraggeber zum Ersatz verpflichtet.")
§669 of the Civil Code (source in German) (BGB) makes it clear, that the designated person can claim the necessary expenses in advance. ("Für die zur Ausführung des Auftrags erforderlichen Aufwendungen hat der Auftraggeber dem Beauftragten auf Verlangen Vorschuss zu leisten.")
These conditions are probably negotiable, but without another agreement they are the default regulation.
Thus, if a company invites someone, without making it reasonably clear in advance that they won't pay for expenses, they are legally obligated to pay.
New contributor
add a comment |
As the question specifically asks for different jurisdictions, i'd like to weigh in with my interpretation of German law:
§670 of the Civil Code (source in German) (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, BGB) should be applicable.
It states, that a person who designates another person to do something, is required to reimburse any expenses that the other person was allowed - according to the circumstances - to consider necessary. ("Macht der Beauftragte zum Zwecke der Ausführung des Auftrags Aufwendungen, die er den Umständen nach für erforderlich halten darf, so ist der Auftraggeber zum Ersatz verpflichtet.")
§669 of the Civil Code (source in German) (BGB) makes it clear, that the designated person can claim the necessary expenses in advance. ("Für die zur Ausführung des Auftrags erforderlichen Aufwendungen hat der Auftraggeber dem Beauftragten auf Verlangen Vorschuss zu leisten.")
These conditions are probably negotiable, but without another agreement they are the default regulation.
Thus, if a company invites someone, without making it reasonably clear in advance that they won't pay for expenses, they are legally obligated to pay.
New contributor
add a comment |
As the question specifically asks for different jurisdictions, i'd like to weigh in with my interpretation of German law:
§670 of the Civil Code (source in German) (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, BGB) should be applicable.
It states, that a person who designates another person to do something, is required to reimburse any expenses that the other person was allowed - according to the circumstances - to consider necessary. ("Macht der Beauftragte zum Zwecke der Ausführung des Auftrags Aufwendungen, die er den Umständen nach für erforderlich halten darf, so ist der Auftraggeber zum Ersatz verpflichtet.")
§669 of the Civil Code (source in German) (BGB) makes it clear, that the designated person can claim the necessary expenses in advance. ("Für die zur Ausführung des Auftrags erforderlichen Aufwendungen hat der Auftraggeber dem Beauftragten auf Verlangen Vorschuss zu leisten.")
These conditions are probably negotiable, but without another agreement they are the default regulation.
Thus, if a company invites someone, without making it reasonably clear in advance that they won't pay for expenses, they are legally obligated to pay.
New contributor
As the question specifically asks for different jurisdictions, i'd like to weigh in with my interpretation of German law:
§670 of the Civil Code (source in German) (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, BGB) should be applicable.
It states, that a person who designates another person to do something, is required to reimburse any expenses that the other person was allowed - according to the circumstances - to consider necessary. ("Macht der Beauftragte zum Zwecke der Ausführung des Auftrags Aufwendungen, die er den Umständen nach für erforderlich halten darf, so ist der Auftraggeber zum Ersatz verpflichtet.")
§669 of the Civil Code (source in German) (BGB) makes it clear, that the designated person can claim the necessary expenses in advance. ("Für die zur Ausführung des Auftrags erforderlichen Aufwendungen hat der Auftraggeber dem Beauftragten auf Verlangen Vorschuss zu leisten.")
These conditions are probably negotiable, but without another agreement they are the default regulation.
Thus, if a company invites someone, without making it reasonably clear in advance that they won't pay for expenses, they are legally obligated to pay.
New contributor
New contributor
answered 6 hours ago
Alexander KosubekAlexander Kosubek
1613
1613
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
There are several times I've had interviews where I did not lie on my CV/Resume but did not fit the bill. However, when I got to the interview the job description was misleading or off, or they asked questions that were no were related to the job description.
People here are blaming you without actually having any information to back that up. Also, I believe that there is no excuse to strand someone like that and in a court, you will be able to hold the upper hand here. I suggest contacting a lawyer and finding out your options.
I've done several interviews where I flew somewhere, bombed the interview, and still was able to get home safely. What the company did was place your health, safety, and financial situation in jeopardy. Regardless of the situation, no company should just strand someone like that. It's petty and immature and I personally would never want to work for a company like that.
New contributor
21
I agree with your comments, but I don't think they answer the OP's question here.
– ruakh
yesterday
I tried to provide personal insight as well as an answer. Regardless of what others are saying, there is no excuse of just stranding someone. If they felt they were defrauded they could have taken the person to court after he got home. Stranding him like that just ruined any case the company had against the person.
– Daniel Shafer
yesterday
1
@DanielShafer there certainly is, actually... If the person fundamentally misrepresented themselves and their skills, they are not only on the hook for the ride home, but to reimburse the company for the part of thir trip which was paid, possibly triple damages on that if fraud can be proven. The company may have done them a favor by cutting the amount of damages that could be tripled.
– Harper
18 hours ago
2
@DanielShafer "there is no excuse" in your comment seems to be addressing the moral (versus legal) side of the story. Even then that is arguable if, for example, the job applicant blatantly lied just to get a free return ride (not claiming that is the case with the OP, just hypothetical): canceling the return flight would be a very good lesson the company could give to the liar and time waster (of course, provided that it does not endanger him; "stranding" at a city airport would hardly be putting him in danger).
– Greendrake
18 hours ago
@Greendrake stranding someone can put them into financial ruin if they lack the means to return to their normal life and thus lose their job. That is not danger per se, but close enough.
– Chieron
2 hours ago
add a comment |
There are several times I've had interviews where I did not lie on my CV/Resume but did not fit the bill. However, when I got to the interview the job description was misleading or off, or they asked questions that were no were related to the job description.
People here are blaming you without actually having any information to back that up. Also, I believe that there is no excuse to strand someone like that and in a court, you will be able to hold the upper hand here. I suggest contacting a lawyer and finding out your options.
I've done several interviews where I flew somewhere, bombed the interview, and still was able to get home safely. What the company did was place your health, safety, and financial situation in jeopardy. Regardless of the situation, no company should just strand someone like that. It's petty and immature and I personally would never want to work for a company like that.
New contributor
21
I agree with your comments, but I don't think they answer the OP's question here.
– ruakh
yesterday
I tried to provide personal insight as well as an answer. Regardless of what others are saying, there is no excuse of just stranding someone. If they felt they were defrauded they could have taken the person to court after he got home. Stranding him like that just ruined any case the company had against the person.
– Daniel Shafer
yesterday
1
@DanielShafer there certainly is, actually... If the person fundamentally misrepresented themselves and their skills, they are not only on the hook for the ride home, but to reimburse the company for the part of thir trip which was paid, possibly triple damages on that if fraud can be proven. The company may have done them a favor by cutting the amount of damages that could be tripled.
– Harper
18 hours ago
2
@DanielShafer "there is no excuse" in your comment seems to be addressing the moral (versus legal) side of the story. Even then that is arguable if, for example, the job applicant blatantly lied just to get a free return ride (not claiming that is the case with the OP, just hypothetical): canceling the return flight would be a very good lesson the company could give to the liar and time waster (of course, provided that it does not endanger him; "stranding" at a city airport would hardly be putting him in danger).
– Greendrake
18 hours ago
@Greendrake stranding someone can put them into financial ruin if they lack the means to return to their normal life and thus lose their job. That is not danger per se, but close enough.
– Chieron
2 hours ago
add a comment |
There are several times I've had interviews where I did not lie on my CV/Resume but did not fit the bill. However, when I got to the interview the job description was misleading or off, or they asked questions that were no were related to the job description.
People here are blaming you without actually having any information to back that up. Also, I believe that there is no excuse to strand someone like that and in a court, you will be able to hold the upper hand here. I suggest contacting a lawyer and finding out your options.
I've done several interviews where I flew somewhere, bombed the interview, and still was able to get home safely. What the company did was place your health, safety, and financial situation in jeopardy. Regardless of the situation, no company should just strand someone like that. It's petty and immature and I personally would never want to work for a company like that.
New contributor
There are several times I've had interviews where I did not lie on my CV/Resume but did not fit the bill. However, when I got to the interview the job description was misleading or off, or they asked questions that were no were related to the job description.
People here are blaming you without actually having any information to back that up. Also, I believe that there is no excuse to strand someone like that and in a court, you will be able to hold the upper hand here. I suggest contacting a lawyer and finding out your options.
I've done several interviews where I flew somewhere, bombed the interview, and still was able to get home safely. What the company did was place your health, safety, and financial situation in jeopardy. Regardless of the situation, no company should just strand someone like that. It's petty and immature and I personally would never want to work for a company like that.
New contributor
New contributor
answered yesterday
Daniel ShaferDaniel Shafer
512
512
New contributor
New contributor
21
I agree with your comments, but I don't think they answer the OP's question here.
– ruakh
yesterday
I tried to provide personal insight as well as an answer. Regardless of what others are saying, there is no excuse of just stranding someone. If they felt they were defrauded they could have taken the person to court after he got home. Stranding him like that just ruined any case the company had against the person.
– Daniel Shafer
yesterday
1
@DanielShafer there certainly is, actually... If the person fundamentally misrepresented themselves and their skills, they are not only on the hook for the ride home, but to reimburse the company for the part of thir trip which was paid, possibly triple damages on that if fraud can be proven. The company may have done them a favor by cutting the amount of damages that could be tripled.
– Harper
18 hours ago
2
@DanielShafer "there is no excuse" in your comment seems to be addressing the moral (versus legal) side of the story. Even then that is arguable if, for example, the job applicant blatantly lied just to get a free return ride (not claiming that is the case with the OP, just hypothetical): canceling the return flight would be a very good lesson the company could give to the liar and time waster (of course, provided that it does not endanger him; "stranding" at a city airport would hardly be putting him in danger).
– Greendrake
18 hours ago
@Greendrake stranding someone can put them into financial ruin if they lack the means to return to their normal life and thus lose their job. That is not danger per se, but close enough.
– Chieron
2 hours ago
add a comment |
21
I agree with your comments, but I don't think they answer the OP's question here.
– ruakh
yesterday
I tried to provide personal insight as well as an answer. Regardless of what others are saying, there is no excuse of just stranding someone. If they felt they were defrauded they could have taken the person to court after he got home. Stranding him like that just ruined any case the company had against the person.
– Daniel Shafer
yesterday
1
@DanielShafer there certainly is, actually... If the person fundamentally misrepresented themselves and their skills, they are not only on the hook for the ride home, but to reimburse the company for the part of thir trip which was paid, possibly triple damages on that if fraud can be proven. The company may have done them a favor by cutting the amount of damages that could be tripled.
– Harper
18 hours ago
2
@DanielShafer "there is no excuse" in your comment seems to be addressing the moral (versus legal) side of the story. Even then that is arguable if, for example, the job applicant blatantly lied just to get a free return ride (not claiming that is the case with the OP, just hypothetical): canceling the return flight would be a very good lesson the company could give to the liar and time waster (of course, provided that it does not endanger him; "stranding" at a city airport would hardly be putting him in danger).
– Greendrake
18 hours ago
@Greendrake stranding someone can put them into financial ruin if they lack the means to return to their normal life and thus lose their job. That is not danger per se, but close enough.
– Chieron
2 hours ago
21
21
I agree with your comments, but I don't think they answer the OP's question here.
– ruakh
yesterday
I agree with your comments, but I don't think they answer the OP's question here.
– ruakh
yesterday
I tried to provide personal insight as well as an answer. Regardless of what others are saying, there is no excuse of just stranding someone. If they felt they were defrauded they could have taken the person to court after he got home. Stranding him like that just ruined any case the company had against the person.
– Daniel Shafer
yesterday
I tried to provide personal insight as well as an answer. Regardless of what others are saying, there is no excuse of just stranding someone. If they felt they were defrauded they could have taken the person to court after he got home. Stranding him like that just ruined any case the company had against the person.
– Daniel Shafer
yesterday
1
1
@DanielShafer there certainly is, actually... If the person fundamentally misrepresented themselves and their skills, they are not only on the hook for the ride home, but to reimburse the company for the part of thir trip which was paid, possibly triple damages on that if fraud can be proven. The company may have done them a favor by cutting the amount of damages that could be tripled.
– Harper
18 hours ago
@DanielShafer there certainly is, actually... If the person fundamentally misrepresented themselves and their skills, they are not only on the hook for the ride home, but to reimburse the company for the part of thir trip which was paid, possibly triple damages on that if fraud can be proven. The company may have done them a favor by cutting the amount of damages that could be tripled.
– Harper
18 hours ago
2
2
@DanielShafer "there is no excuse" in your comment seems to be addressing the moral (versus legal) side of the story. Even then that is arguable if, for example, the job applicant blatantly lied just to get a free return ride (not claiming that is the case with the OP, just hypothetical): canceling the return flight would be a very good lesson the company could give to the liar and time waster (of course, provided that it does not endanger him; "stranding" at a city airport would hardly be putting him in danger).
– Greendrake
18 hours ago
@DanielShafer "there is no excuse" in your comment seems to be addressing the moral (versus legal) side of the story. Even then that is arguable if, for example, the job applicant blatantly lied just to get a free return ride (not claiming that is the case with the OP, just hypothetical): canceling the return flight would be a very good lesson the company could give to the liar and time waster (of course, provided that it does not endanger him; "stranding" at a city airport would hardly be putting him in danger).
– Greendrake
18 hours ago
@Greendrake stranding someone can put them into financial ruin if they lack the means to return to their normal life and thus lose their job. That is not danger per se, but close enough.
– Chieron
2 hours ago
@Greendrake stranding someone can put them into financial ruin if they lack the means to return to their normal life and thus lose their job. That is not danger per se, but close enough.
– Chieron
2 hours ago
add a comment |
Under UK law you can recover any costs from them. You will need some basic evidence, such as emails or letters where they state they will fly you home.
Your costs are things you would not have had to pay if they had not stranded you. Food costs above what it costs you to eat at home, any services like hotels, showers, wifi etc, and of course your greyhound ticket and whatever it cost your friend in petrol. In fact you should claim mileage (typically 50p/mile) for your friend's car, plus any time they had off work.
If you were unable to work any days you should claim you full day rate too.
Add interest, any bank charges you had (e.g. credit card interest, overdrafts) and the like.
Small Claims Court is probably your best bet. It's cheap, you can do it online and you don't need a lawyer. Just turn up and explain what happened to the judge. Best of all it will be your local court, so if they want to defend themselves they will have to send someone or hire a local lawyer. The judge will by sympathetic and helpful, and not expect you to be a legal expert.
Small Claims court has a maximum claim of £10,000.
You can also claim for your suffering. It's difficult to put a precise figure on what you should get for your ordeal, but three days in an airport and having to eat scraps... I'd suggest £3000 as a starting point (£1000/day), assuming it doesn't push your total claim over the £10,000 mark.
add a comment |
Under UK law you can recover any costs from them. You will need some basic evidence, such as emails or letters where they state they will fly you home.
Your costs are things you would not have had to pay if they had not stranded you. Food costs above what it costs you to eat at home, any services like hotels, showers, wifi etc, and of course your greyhound ticket and whatever it cost your friend in petrol. In fact you should claim mileage (typically 50p/mile) for your friend's car, plus any time they had off work.
If you were unable to work any days you should claim you full day rate too.
Add interest, any bank charges you had (e.g. credit card interest, overdrafts) and the like.
Small Claims Court is probably your best bet. It's cheap, you can do it online and you don't need a lawyer. Just turn up and explain what happened to the judge. Best of all it will be your local court, so if they want to defend themselves they will have to send someone or hire a local lawyer. The judge will by sympathetic and helpful, and not expect you to be a legal expert.
Small Claims court has a maximum claim of £10,000.
You can also claim for your suffering. It's difficult to put a precise figure on what you should get for your ordeal, but three days in an airport and having to eat scraps... I'd suggest £3000 as a starting point (£1000/day), assuming it doesn't push your total claim over the £10,000 mark.
add a comment |
Under UK law you can recover any costs from them. You will need some basic evidence, such as emails or letters where they state they will fly you home.
Your costs are things you would not have had to pay if they had not stranded you. Food costs above what it costs you to eat at home, any services like hotels, showers, wifi etc, and of course your greyhound ticket and whatever it cost your friend in petrol. In fact you should claim mileage (typically 50p/mile) for your friend's car, plus any time they had off work.
If you were unable to work any days you should claim you full day rate too.
Add interest, any bank charges you had (e.g. credit card interest, overdrafts) and the like.
Small Claims Court is probably your best bet. It's cheap, you can do it online and you don't need a lawyer. Just turn up and explain what happened to the judge. Best of all it will be your local court, so if they want to defend themselves they will have to send someone or hire a local lawyer. The judge will by sympathetic and helpful, and not expect you to be a legal expert.
Small Claims court has a maximum claim of £10,000.
You can also claim for your suffering. It's difficult to put a precise figure on what you should get for your ordeal, but three days in an airport and having to eat scraps... I'd suggest £3000 as a starting point (£1000/day), assuming it doesn't push your total claim over the £10,000 mark.
Under UK law you can recover any costs from them. You will need some basic evidence, such as emails or letters where they state they will fly you home.
Your costs are things you would not have had to pay if they had not stranded you. Food costs above what it costs you to eat at home, any services like hotels, showers, wifi etc, and of course your greyhound ticket and whatever it cost your friend in petrol. In fact you should claim mileage (typically 50p/mile) for your friend's car, plus any time they had off work.
If you were unable to work any days you should claim you full day rate too.
Add interest, any bank charges you had (e.g. credit card interest, overdrafts) and the like.
Small Claims Court is probably your best bet. It's cheap, you can do it online and you don't need a lawyer. Just turn up and explain what happened to the judge. Best of all it will be your local court, so if they want to defend themselves they will have to send someone or hire a local lawyer. The judge will by sympathetic and helpful, and not expect you to be a legal expert.
Small Claims court has a maximum claim of £10,000.
You can also claim for your suffering. It's difficult to put a precise figure on what you should get for your ordeal, but three days in an airport and having to eat scraps... I'd suggest £3000 as a starting point (£1000/day), assuming it doesn't push your total claim over the £10,000 mark.
answered 4 hours ago
useruser
1,050514
1,050514
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Law Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flaw.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f36259%2fif-a-company-agrees-to-pay-travel-cost-for-a-job-interview-is-the-promise-bindi%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
4
In addition to "legally" there's also the problem of "effectively". In some jurisdictions the company are liable for costs incurred while making them pay up. In others they aren't. On top of that you get a second case against them if you can prove that they didn't simply renege on a contract, but did maliciously take action to cause damage (economic and otherwise) to yourself.
– Peter
2 days ago
Wow, this is now the second-highest voted question on law.SE. I'd never thought a question about such a (hopefully) rare problem would be so popular. Thanks everyone :-).
– sleske
7 hours ago