Haizzzz,

1. Compnay cannot force a person to work as it is against the concept of slavery.

2. However, if there is a notice period and you do not wish to comply, you can compensate in liue of the notice.

3. Same, if the agreement states that in the event you leave earlier you pay....you pay. Eg scholarship bond

4. Without the contract of employment, hard for us to advise you.

5. Company can also preemptive sue you if you contract contains non competitive clause and you are breaking that Clause.

TLDR .. need more info wat the Co is planning to take out against you

Aiyo, cannot la...company cannot sue for the balance period since company had not suffered any loss. Pure economic loss cannot be pursued in Malaysia.

You car expert ....but there is a legal flaw in your argument.

You see, even if I breach any contract, the remedy is for damages or specific performance that forces me to comply . In law, especially in contract of services, specific performance is a no-no because it equates the concept of slavery, i.e you force someone to work for you. Hence the remedy available is damages.

Now, even though I promise to work for 2 years, and I work only for 1 month, what did the company lose? 1 year and 11 months of my services right? How do one quantify that in $$? In fact, the company did not lose anything in terms of monetary loss. Company cannot claim for potential economic loss, i.e loss of profit generated by 1 staff as those amount to pure economic loss.

So, technically speaking, even if one doesn't complete a contact of service, subject to an agreement to compensate (hence see my no 3), the company cannot claim anything from the employee.

Wow....you sure ka?

So in that case..the company can fire a probationer anytime since contract no valid? Fikir-fikir kan la

Stop!... if you don't really know the answer please don't muddle it. I know this is /k but please

I will just leave this here

In Khaliah binti Abbas vs Pesaka Capital Corporation Sdn Bhd, the Court of Appeal ruled that an employee on probation enjoys the same rights as a permanent or confirmed employee and he or she cannot be terminated without just cause or excuse.

You can google the case

Ah finally a legitimate post from Riddle.

Yes, non compete has to harmonized with the prohibition of restrain of trade. Each Clause will be interpreted by the Court to see the reasonableness. You cannot be barred from making a living, but can be barred from joining in a same industry. Usually the restrain will be to join a competitor in certain area or radius for x amount of year. X has been decided to be in the range of 6 months-3years. Cannot be like 10 years or that since it will render it unreasonable.

Lol....ICPC...I know some of the fellas who did that FAQ.

Name and shame? Waloa..later the company sue the TS for defamation lagi jia lat......

I understand where you are coming from. However, unless you understand the concept of pure economic loss, I cannot explain it further.

TLDR, the loss must be within parties contemplation. Every loss there is a test, remoteness. If everything under the sky can be claim, say like if I bang someone on the way to job interview, am I to pay him for the "potential" gain of salary if he had successfully attended the interview? If so, the possibility is endless and leads to uncertainty in law.

Again, the loss must be real and cannot be some formulated loss based on what ifs? So if I resign from my post, what is the "real" loss to the company? Losses that were contemplated by parties.

You have the late Karpal banner and yet

Its the Judge's interpretation of the contact that wins...if you followed my explanation, I already said No 3. Above, if the agreement says compensation, pay up. The above scenario is on the premise where the contact doesn't have a compensation /LAD clause.

Cow can come home liao lo