[Sussex] Tie becomes unbound

[Steve Dobson]

Geoff

On 12 March 2003 at 10:29 Geoff Teale wrote: 
> If the consultant would not normally freely choose to wear a suit, then
> wearing one for sales purposes could be deamed as a misrepresentation of
the
> product/services on offer. If the consultancy firm considers smart dress a
> contractual requirement of their employees then this misrepresentation is
> the responsibility of the firm.  Technically this is fraud.  
> 
> This may sound like a Babel-fish arguement, but it works in law.  To
recap,
> if the consultancy firm can prove they have a valid contractual
requirement
> for the consultant to wear a suit they instantly become guilty of fraud
> because the consultant would not normally wear a suit outside of duress.
> This in turn means that any contracts secured by forcing the consultant to
> wear a suit are null and void and thus forcing the consultant to wear a
suit
> is demonstrably detremental to the business.  This of course debases the
> valid contractural right to dictate dress and thus the firm cannot legally
> dictate to the consultant what they should wear.

This rises a question in my mind.  If a candidate for a job wears a suit to
a job interview, clothing that (s)he would not normally wear, are they
(technically) committing fraud?

Steve