Understanding Legal Implications of Letter of Intent and Training Expenses in Employment Contracts

Friends, I want to have an opinion from you HR experts. I was handed over a "Letter of Intent" which was accepted by me. Though the first line in the letter reads "We are pleased to make an offer of employment on the following terms and conditions...". Now there was a binding clause in that LOI which talks of recovering the amount spent on training in case the candidate leaves the org within 12 months from the completion of training.

Subsequently, I was given a formal letter of appointment. This does not contain the aforementioned binding clause. However, at the end of it, there is a small sentence, which says "by signing this, you agree to accept conditions of this appointment letter and the offer letter issued to you earlier..."

In this situation, could you please let me know the legality of the LOI in lieu of the Offer letter? Can I consider the binding clause not binding on me at all since it was part of the LOI and not the Offer letter, even though the appointment letter refers to the Offer letter, which was never issued?

Please help me.

Mr. Prakash,

Thanks for your reply. However, wouldn't there be a discrepancy in the letter of appointment which states "clauses in the letter of offer issued earlier..." whereas no offer letter was issued and it was merely an LOI? How would the law look at it? Would I be compelled to pay all the expenses incurred on training just because it was mentioned in the LOI?

Also, in the case where my separation is due to constant harassment by my senior, which was brought to the notice of the CEO?

Dear,

You have not referred to any bond signed by you. If you have not signed a bond and merely a reference is found in the LOI without being part of the Letter of Appointment, you can always argue that the LOI gets merged into the LOA and terms get superseded. This is an appreciable argument. But such things are not settled between the parties. If it has to be contested, if you point out the discrepancy and if the management still insists, you will have to settle it in a court of law. The last word for declaring an action of the management is the civil court.

With Regards,

V. Sounder Rajan

E-mail: rajanassociates@eth.net

Mr. Rajan, it's a little unclear. Will I be protected from my company recovering expenses on training? No bond was signed, and it was just mentioned in my LOI. Can I argue that my resignation is due to a lack of soft HR skills by my senior?

Dear,

If you have not signed a bond as you say, unlike in an action for recovery under a bond, it is not a liquidated sum they will have to prove the loss and recover it from you. It is a long-drawn process. You seem to be on a good wicket. Go all out and foreclose on the manner already suggested.

With Regards, V. Sounder Rajan

Mr. Rajan, That's really heartening to know. I'm in an Insurance company, but in the finance section. Actually, most of the expenses incurred were on training the Actuaries who are trained on specialized models, etc. (some proprietary too). We were provided only a week's training on the Accounts and reporting package, which could not have been expensive. This clause, which is actually for Actuaries employed, is made applicable to every employee in general. And since sending us abroad for training was the company's requirement and not our demand. Are my arguments reasonable???

Dear,

If it is appealing to us as a lawyer, it should be appreciated by your employers who are insurers. They will not waste their time on fighting a losing case as you have exposed in your continuous posts citing the use of the actuary training clause. Ditto for your profile. Good luck.

With Regards,
V. Sounder Rajan

Dear,

Upon perusal of your entire story, I can confirm that the terms of the Letter of Intent (LOI) are binding on you, as you accepted the offer by signing its copy and subsequently agreed to the appointment letter.

The specific clause in the appointment letter, which incorporates the LOI as part of the appointment terms, will be legally binding and valid once you accept the offer and subsequently the appointment letter.

Thanks, Mohd Arif Khan 09891497178

I'm getting varied responses. I'm a bit confused as to what the actual legal implication is. Please, could you clarify?