| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
phaedrus
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Location: I'm comin' to get ya.
|
 Posted: Mon Nov 08, 2004 3:15 am Post subject: Contracts: English versus Korean |
 |
|
Which is legal?
I hear that the Korean version is the legal version, but how can this be so if the only contract you sign is in English?
The next time I get a job I want to rewrite the contract so all the stupid clauses such as "and other duties as specified by the director" are written out.
Of course it would useless to do this if the only "legal" version is the corrupt Korean version sitting at immigration without my signature on it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
peppermint
Joined: 13 May 2003
Location: traversing the minefields of caddishness.
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 08, 2004 6:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I had to sign two contracts at my current job- the Korean version, and the English one. There's a clause saying that the Korean version is binding, but that the school is liable if there are any differences in the two versions. Seems like a safe way to go to me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
phaedrus
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Location: I'm comin' to get ya.
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 1:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| peppermint wrote: |
| I had to sign two contracts at my current job- the Korean version, and the English one. There's a clause saying that the Korean version is binding, but that the school is liable if there are any differences in the two versions. Seems like a safe way to go to me. |
Is that clause in the Korean version or the English version?
I feel safe I can work my desires into the English version, but expect they may not get translated properly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nev
Joined: 04 Jan 2004
Location: ch7t
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 1:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| My contract states that in the case of any disagreement between the English and Korean version, then it is the English one that is right. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
phaedrus
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Location: I'm comin' to get ya.
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 2:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| nev wrote: |
| My contract states that in the case of any disagreement between the English and Korean version, then it is the English one that is right. |
Is this defendable in an actual legal dispute? That's what I'm wondering.
I've had contracts say all sorts of things, but if what is said conflicts with actual laws, the law often overrides the contract phrasing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sadsac
Joined: 22 Dec 2003
Location: Gwangwang
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 7:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
There is no contract law in Korea. I have never accepted a contract written in Korean. I will only sign an English version of a contract. I can't see the sense in having it in two languages, when I don't understand one of them.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
phaedrus
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Location: I'm comin' to get ya.
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 10, 2004 1:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sadsac wrote: |
| There is no contract law in Korea. |
I suppose it's more of an issue of the owners not caring about what a contract says.
How about writing your own contract, putting clauses in it that undermine the traditional hagwon expectations, having it signed by the owner that doesn't care, and then trying to have the owner agree with it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gord
Joined: 25 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 10, 2004 1:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| phaedrus wrote: |
| How about writing your own contract, putting clauses in it that undermine the traditional hagwon expectations, having it signed by the owner that doesn't care, and then trying to have the owner agree with it? |
A contract requires consideration for it to be held legal and the consenting parties liable. Landmining a contract only serves as a bluffing tool and is of no real value before the law. Open and frank discussion is the best way to deal with problems or disagreements. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
phaedrus
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Location: I'm comin' to get ya.
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 10, 2004 2:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gord wrote: |
| phaedrus wrote: |
| How about writing your own contract, putting clauses in it that undermine the traditional hagwon expectations, having it signed by the owner that doesn't care, and then trying to have the owner agree with it? |
A contract requires consideration for it to be held legal and the consenting parties liable. Landmining a contract only serves as a bluffing tool and is of no real value before the law. Open and frank discussion is the best way to deal with problems or disagreements. |
I'm not thinking about landmining.
I'm considering wiping out clauses such as "other work as specified by director" in the section of required work responsibilities. This means weekend camps, evening phone calls to students, open houses on Saturdays, etc., and all without pay. These things are fine if you teach three hours per day, but not if you are teaching 120 hours a month for 2.0 million.
I would think the owner saying that they didn't actually read the contract before they signed it wouldn't get them very far in court.
On second thought I'm also thinking I probably won't work at a hagwon again. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 10, 2004 7:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| phaedrus wrote: |
[
I'm not thinking about landmining.
I'm considering wiping out clauses such as "other work as specified by director" in the section of required work responsibilities. This means weekend camps, evening phone calls to students, open houses on Saturdays, etc., and all without pay. These things are fine if you teach three hours per day, but not if you are teaching 120 hours a month for 2.0 million.
. |
But if you are teaching 120 hours a month, and then have to do those duties on top of that, then you should have a clause which either states that you are not required to do any additional work above and beyond said 120 hours or are paid overtime for such work. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
