100%(5)5 out of 5 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 1 - 3 out of 3 pages.
What could be the appropriate compensation awarded to plaintif for the loss sufered by him due to breach of implied conditions to give reasonable notice prior to termination (Bardal v. Globe & Mail Ltd, 1960).Legal Rules:As per Bardal v. Globe & Mail Ltd., the following legal rules were applicable:i.The age of employeeii.The length of serviceiii.The character of employmentiv.The availability of similar employment subject to the experience, training and qualifications of the servant (Bardal v. Globe & Mail Ltd., 1960).Analysis:
In Bardal v. Globe & Mail Ltd. case, the court decided that the reasonable notice should be based on the above-mentioned factors.In this case, plaintif worked 17 years for the defendant before his dismissal. He held the title of director of advertising for 4 years and prior to this, an advertising manager which clearly defines that he worked at the top level management. Hence, he was trained and experienced to manage an advertising business. Also, not many competitive jobs were available in Canada to mitigate his losses (Bardal v. Globe& Mail Ltd., 1960).As far as Carter v. Bell and Sons case is concerned, the court specified that the permanence feature of a job can be put to an end by providing reasonable notice (Bardal v. Globe & Mail Ltd., 1960).