Judgment No. 2848
Decision
The complaint is dismissed.
Consideration 20
Extract:
"As the Tribunal reiterated in Judgment 2592, under 14, it is well established in the case law that «[t]here is a binding contract if there is manifest on both sides an intention to contract and if all the essential terms have been settled and if all that remains to be done is a formality which requires no further agreement»."
Reference(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 2592
Keywords
law of contract; contract; offer; intention of parties; acceptance; binding character; effect
Consideration 24
Extract:
"Having regard to the complainant's actions and his persistent, disingenuous attempts to reformulate the contents of communications, the Tribunal finds that the complainant's assertion that he did not reject the offer of the appointment as Chief of Cabinet and Director of ODG is not credible, and that he indeed rejected that offer on 1 August 2002. In the circumstances, the Organization was under no obligation to keep the offer open for any further period. Since it was not kept open, its purported acceptance did not give rise to a binding contract."
Keywords
reasonable time; law of contract; organisation's duties; contract; appointment; offer; notice; limits; acceptance; binding character
Consideration 34
Extract:
"[I]n relation to the delay in the internal appeal proceedings, the Tribunal observes that the complainant has been reasonably compensated for this delay with the Director General's award of 8,000 euros."
Keywords
internal appeal; delay; amount; compensation
| 
