New Zealand does have a Bill of Rights and it is entrenched law (from memory) but still modifiable by Parliament. (First they repeal the clause that contains the entrenchment and then do what they need to.)
Everything is always modifiable by Parliament.
We have no written constitution in the sense the US does. In fact, our constitutional law is written but it is spread all over the place. There is no constitutional court and no need for lawyers (in general) to argue about the wording of the constitution. This works well because those in power have to do the right thing instead of what they think they can get away with.
Parliament is responsible to the Governor-General as the Queen's representative. The G-G has supreme power on paper but is a figurehead for the vast majority of time. Occasionally the G-G has to act and do something like dissolve Parliament. This happened in Australia in the 1970's to Gough Whitlam's government.
The free speech provisions in the laws of most countries explicitly exclude using that speech to defame someone. i.e. lie in order to damage their reputation.
I'm a New Zealander and I'm actually quite angry about the tone the submitter took with this article. While you may feel that people should have the right to unrestricted free speech that is a completely irrelevant argument.
A judge has order Vince Siemer to do something and he has not done it. This must have a serious consequence or there would be no reason for anyone to follow a court order.
He has made his argument in court and lost. He can follow normal process to appeal that decision but refusing a court order is not a valid action.
From what I understand Vince Siemer has been afforded more than ample opportunity to obey the court order and has failed to do so.
The Solictor-General has also stated that Mr Siemer can be released as soon as he agrees to follow the court order. The most likely outcome is that Mr Siemer is imprisoned, he gets annoyed with it and follows the court order.
Indefinite imprisonment is the ultimate punishment and is used rather rarely. These are special cases which deserve it.
There was a case a year or two ago where the Family Court made a custody order which the mother didn't agree with. Some friends of the mother took the child and held him in secret against the court order. The court then imprisoned the mother indefinitely on the grounds that she knew where the child was. It took a few months but eventually the court order was followed and the child went to where the court had ordered.
So, I ask all of you, what else do you expect us to do?
I assume this is a US city? I don't know US law but under legal systems that follow UK common law that wording is almost certainly unenforceable. The leading case is about a blind piano tuner of all things.
Yes, it is important to be able to actually work and the law generally recognises that.
My suggestion is to consult a lawyer as to the exact legality. I would suggest negotiating with your employer to knock that down an aweful lot.
Then the next problem you get is that the search space for credit card numbers is very small. Small enough that a brute force attack can start pulling credit card numbers in about a day.
I wouldn't have asked the question here. I would go see a financial professional if I were you.
However, I'll answer your question. I am not a financial professional but I do have a Commerce degree (and a Science one). I am not responsible for this advice because you are not paying me for it.
You have 18-24 months left (I don't know what rising junior means - if it's anything like rising damp then I'm worried), you aren't paying interest at present but you will once you finish and you've been saving cash into the bank because you intend to pay all your loans back when you finish.
So far so good - a fairly sensible plan.
Assuming you want your money in 2 years' time you cannot afford to take any significant risk. I would recommend against mutual funds or any stock purchases. Those things have a timeline of about 10 years (but do give a very nice return for the risk and timeline). You could think about buying some blue-chip bonds. Make sure what you buy is rated very highly by a respected ratings agency like Standard & Poors or Moodies. At least A rated if not more.
But, to be frank, I'd just put the money into a high interest savings account, a call account or a term deposit (what do you call them in the US? CD's?).
No, you won't get much return but you're not taking much risk.
As soon as those loans start accruing interest then pay them back as quickly as possible. Do not make the mistake of having money in the bank earning x% while you have a loan accruing y% where y > x. Paying back the loan is risk free and therefore the best investment you can make.
Actually the National Bank of New Zealand (www.nbnz.co.nz) does this. You can email the bank only through the Online Banking system which works pretty much like a pared down web mail system.
I was part of a University team that did quite well during the years. Our best result was 2nd in New Zealand for one competition. Anway - some tips: 1. Read the question extremely closely before you start. It is frustrating to miss an important detail *after* you've written a lot of code. 2. Plan carefully before you start. One of my team members was very talented at finding approaches that would work without problems. The other two members of our team could then implement them reliably. You cannot waste time on an incorrect approach. 3. Have some algorithms pre-prepared. Examine previous questions for clues. Generally, we always saw date style problems (what day of the week is 24 November, 3100?) and area style (take a sheet of metal, cut out some shapes, what area is left?) problems. Both of those tended to be difficult and worth a lot to fix. Having an infinite precision math library ready to go is very useful. 4. Keep track of time and don't ever give up coding. You might get the answer in just before the deadline and that can be the difference.
I'm a New Zealander and did a conjoint BSc/BCom in Computer Science and Operations Management. Conjoint means that I did 2 degrees in 4 years (most NZ Bachelor's degrees take 3 years).
I did a BCom (Bachelor of Commerce) because I felt it would help me understand business a whole lot better than a science degree. So far I've been proved right - being able to talk to business people in their terms and convert that back to the realm of software is a very lucrative skill.
You may not believe but there are other ways of taxing based on road mileage. Every vehicle has an odometer which tracks the distance travelled - use that.
In New Zealand, we have a tax on petrol to fund roads and other useful things. Because diesel vehicles can get vastly different fuel efficiency they use a Road User Charges (RUC) system. You can buy RUCs from many places like post offices or AA stores. You must keep your RUCs up to date or you face a fairly steep fine (I think it's 3 times what the RUCs would have cost you). The police check the RUCs every time they do a routine stop. Normally the distance travelled is measured from the odometer however large truck and trailer units will often have a hub mounted distance meter (I don't know why).
Fairly simple and doesn't involve expensive privacy-invading tracking units.
And while we're about things - don't bother whinging about increased taxes. The price of petrol in the US is about a third what much of the rest of the world pays.
"India doesn't deserve the prosperity since it contributed to the instabilty of the region by developing nuclear capability against UN, US and G7 wishes."
Pot, kettle, black? India developed a nuclear capability because they thought Pakistan would develop a nuclear capability. And, unfortunately, vice versa. Those two countries have been fairly frosty or downright nasty ever since the partition. The US developed its nuclear capability partly because they thought that Nazi Germany was. More importantly, the US refined this technology (and continues to do so) to the utmost degree because of their fear of the USSR doing the same. Therefore, how can you judge India badly for doing the exact same thing as you yourself did.
Certainly the US has been doing a pretty good job in contributing to instability in the Middle East for the past, oh, 30 years or so.
The point is not improving living conditions in third world countries dragging the US economy down but allowing those countries to compete fairly. i.e. quite often in free trade discussions the US is all for free trade when it benefits them but is very unwilling to go the other way. i.e. there are huge barriers to exporting lamb to the US. Given that NZ can ship lamb across the Pacific and have it in the US at better quality and a cheaper price (without tariffs) than the home-grown stuff how, exactly, is that fair competition?
B: Umm, I'm sorry, you're flat wrong here. In most surveys NZ comes in at number 3 for openness of our trade barriers, generally behind Hong Kong and Singapore. Basically, we have no tariffs or quotas or any barriers of that nature. We are currently GM-free but that is very likely changing and a cause for quite a lot of debate. The only barriers you are likely to see exporting to NZ are the need to pass Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries requirements - which are necessary because are economy is very heavily biased towards primary production and we cannot afford a devastating pest.
C: Quibbling point - the EU is not a country - not that that really makes a lot of difference. Having said that, regardless of the size of the economies, it is a lot easier for the US to focus those resources on, say, defencse than for the EU.
D: I don't have a source at hand - however similar figures are frequently quoted. The point here is that the US controls many more resources per capita than any other country.
E: I'm just quoting the standard argument in favour of free trade.
As a citizen of a fairly small first world country (New Zealand) that is very dependant on exporting and as an employee of a company not too dissimilar to IBM (although I speak for myself) I have a slightly different view.
To be pointed, to rail against this kind of move on the basis that your job will disappear strikes me as whinging - or worse. Effectively, by saying that, you are saying that your standard of living is so important that your customers and the rest of the world should pay for your comfort. Let me explain.
If the US decides to put in some form of protectionism to protect these jobs then the cost of software to your customers will increase (or at least be higher that what it would otherwise be). This increases the costs of goods and services your customers might export. Secondly, foreign companies who can make use of the cheaper labour will do that and start undercutting the high export prices you charge.
IBM doesn't really have much of a choice here. All of IBM's competitors are looking at doing the same because if they can provide the same service at a cheaper cost then clients will ask for that. In the short term, if IBM manages to move faster and do this more effectively than its competitors (something that is very hard to do), then there are some fairly good profits to be made. In the long term, if this works, then all of IBM's competitors will do the same and the cost of software will decrease. This is all standard economics.
In the even longer term everything will even out a bit more. The Indian programmers will start spending their money and so the rest of the Indian economy will start feeding off that and therefore get more prosperous. Slowly prices will rise and maybe, just maybe, India will have a standard of living equal to a first world country.
The really interesting thing about the free trade argument is that in the long term this kind of change supposedly can be acheived with the existing first world countries being dragged down (at least not too much). I'm not sure I really believe this claim though.
Now to get a little bit more harsh. The US is the largest and richest economy in the world. You also control something like 90% of the world's resources with about 4% of the world's population. You have also shown yourself more than willing to use violence to take more resources on fairly flimsy pretexes.
Exactly why should you keep on controlling this much of the world's wealth? When suddenly a foreign country works out what you do and does it better you start trying to diddle them.
In general, the road to continued wealth for a country is to have better innovation. I don't really think the US has much of a problem there.
On an individual level, if somebody can provide the same skills as you provide at a cheaper cost then you need to get better skills. This is harsh but whinging and expecting the world to provide you a living is the mark of a somebody who will find themselves marginalised fairly quickly.
Apply standard change management advice. If you don't know what that is then go get someone to tell you. (Disclosure: I work for a large company that, amongst a lot of things, does change management).
The project I'm working on has a large change management component and I'm impressed with the sense of the person in charge of it.
Things to do: Get the users together and explain HIPAA to them. Explain why it is important to the public (i.e. why you need good security). Explain the consequences of failure. People will understand if you actually explain the reasoning to them. Give them chances to ask question and modify what you do. People are happier to sign on to things if they feel they've got some input into it.
Work on the IT side and get it work pretty well. Create detailed, clear, easy step by step instructions that work. Make sure you've got staff (i.e. you) available to provide quick support when it inevitably doesn't quite work.
Make sure you've got a high level executive sponsor who understands the political issues and is happy to give you the support you need. (i.e. authority to fire if need be.)
I would put in place a monitoring process. If a user isn't doing the right thing then grab them and talk to them. If there's something you can do to fix their problem then do that. There may be technical things you can do that will get to them to do it right. If they don't shape up once you've done that then you grab your executive sponsor and have a solemn meeting telling them to do things right. (This meeting has an implicit threat of firing behind it so it tends to work). Make a written record of this meeting. If all that doesn't work then you start going through the due diligence firing process i.e. written warnings before firing. HR people know how to do this.
I am not a lawyer but I've studied New Zealand contract law. Both New Zealand and Canada have common law systems - most of contract law is based on UK cases which both judiciaries look on as "highly persuasive". Canadian law (statute or case) may override what I say here.
Check your employment contract and anything they have said to you in order to induce you to sign that employment contract. Secondly check the local labour law that applies to your area. If you are entitled to anything under any of the above then you are due that whether or not you agree not to sue them. Both you and your employer have agreed to this and that's your starting point. Neither party can retroactively change the provisions of a contract except in certain circumstances.
Now if they want you to give up your right to sue then they need to offer you some form of consideration for that. This means they must give you more money (or something else good) in exchange. That's perfectly valid but even then the courts may look on your employer's actions with suspicion. In general the courts don't like people making contracts which exclude their jurisdiction. PayPal got hit by that recently.
Contracts for settlement are generally used in more specific circumstances. i.e. you are, in fact, sueing or about to sue them in some specific cause of action. A general purpose one probably wouldn't hold up in New Zealand but, I suspect, would in the US. I can't speak for Canada.
I suggest that you examine any reasons you might have for sueing them. If you think you might have anything you might get home on then go see a lawyer and talk it over. Also examine what the working environment was like in general. Is it likely that you will get sick in the future from something that happened to you while employed by them. Important point: was it reasonably forseeable for them to predict that? i.e. if some new disease/syndrome comes up but your employer could not have known what they were doing would cause it then you won't be able to sue them in negligence because negligence requires the harm to reasonably forseeable (Donahue v Stevenson I believe).
In conclusion: if you're worried consult a lawyer. If they've done something that you could possible sue for consult a lawyer. If they haven't then take the money.
[Every license includes that clause. It's probably unenforceable.]
IANAL but it's very probably unenforceable in NZ (and probabaly the UK as well).
Relevant case is Dunlop Pnuematic Tyre Co v Selfridges. Dunlop sold some tyres to a distributor with a clause restricting the onselling price. It was held that a third party, not a party of the original contract, cannot be bound by any restrictions.
Re:Click-wrap license agreement problem - solved
on
Copyrant
·
· Score: 3
Won't work in New Zealand law - I know next to nothing of US law but it probably follows the same principles.
BTW, IANAL.
Contracts made while severely under the influence of alcohol are voidable. This means that when you get sober you can void it. Or you can decide to ratify it. Gibbons v Wright (1954) 91 CLR 423 is the authority for this.
Voiding the contract appears to be ab initio i.e. they give you back your money - you give them back the software and everything is returned to the start (Hermann v Charlesworth [1905] 2 KB 123.).
In NZ minor's contracts are covered by the Minors Contracts Act 1969. It's statute not common law so doesn't hold in the US but the principle is that people over 20 are of full age. People 18 and 19 (and employment contracts) can have a contract enforced against them unless the terms are 'harsh or unconscionable' or the 'consideration is so inadequate as to be unconscionable'. People under 18 can't have contracts enforced against them unless it's 'fair and reasonable'. This means looking at the whole circumstances.
However NZ has fairly strict consumer legislation - it includes statutory guarantees of quality and other good stuff - and you can't contract out of it unless it's for business purposes (and even then it's difficult).
It would be interesting to see what would happen if somebody brought an action under this legislation.
Slashdot Mirror
New Zealand does have a Bill of Rights and it is entrenched law (from memory) but still modifiable by Parliament. (First they repeal the clause that contains the entrenchment and then do what they need to.)
Everything is always modifiable by Parliament.
We have no written constitution in the sense the US does. In fact, our constitutional law is written but it is spread all over the place. There is no constitutional court and no need for lawyers (in general) to argue about the wording of the constitution. This works well because those in power have to do the right thing instead of what they think they can get away with.
Parliament is responsible to the Governor-General as the Queen's representative. The G-G has supreme power on paper but is a figurehead for the vast majority of time. Occasionally the G-G has to act and do something like dissolve Parliament. This happened in Australia in the 1970's to Gough Whitlam's government.
And what, pray tell, do you actually think is wrong with the judiciary?
The free speech provisions in the laws of most countries explicitly exclude using that speech to defame someone. i.e. lie in order to damage their reputation.
How then are the laws broken?
I'm a New Zealander and I'm actually quite angry about the tone the submitter took with this article. While you may feel that people should have the right to unrestricted free speech that is a completely irrelevant argument.
A judge has order Vince Siemer to do something and he has not done it. This must have a serious consequence or there would be no reason for anyone to follow a court order.
He has made his argument in court and lost. He can follow normal process to appeal that decision but refusing a court order is not a valid action.
From what I understand Vince Siemer has been afforded more than ample opportunity to obey the court order and has failed to do so.
The Solictor-General has also stated that Mr Siemer can be released as soon as he agrees to follow the court order. The most likely outcome is that Mr Siemer is imprisoned, he gets annoyed with it and follows the court order.
Indefinite imprisonment is the ultimate punishment and is used rather rarely. These are special cases which deserve it.
There was a case a year or two ago where the Family Court made a custody order which the mother didn't agree with. Some friends of the mother took the child and held him in secret against the court order. The court then imprisoned the mother indefinitely on the grounds that she knew where the child was. It took a few months but eventually the court order was followed and the child went to where the court had ordered.
So, I ask all of you, what else do you expect us to do?
I assume this is a US city? I don't know US law but under legal systems that follow UK common law that wording is almost certainly unenforceable. The leading case is about a blind piano tuner of all things.
Yes, it is important to be able to actually work and the law generally recognises that.
My suggestion is to consult a lawyer as to the exact legality. I would suggest negotiating with your employer to knock that down an aweful lot.
Then the next problem you get is that the search space for credit card numbers is very small. Small enough that a brute force attack can start pulling credit card numbers in about a day.
I wouldn't have asked the question here. I would go see a financial professional if I were you.
However, I'll answer your question. I am not a financial professional but I do have a Commerce degree (and a Science one). I am not responsible for this advice because you are not paying me for it.
You have 18-24 months left (I don't know what rising junior means - if it's anything like rising damp then I'm worried), you aren't paying interest at present but you will once you finish and you've been saving cash into the bank because you intend to pay all your loans back when you finish.
So far so good - a fairly sensible plan.
Assuming you want your money in 2 years' time you cannot afford to take any significant risk. I would recommend against mutual funds or any stock purchases. Those things have a timeline of about 10 years (but do give a very nice return for the risk and timeline).
You could think about buying some blue-chip bonds. Make sure what you buy is rated very highly by a respected ratings agency like Standard & Poors or Moodies. At least A rated if not more.
But, to be frank, I'd just put the money into a high interest savings account, a call account or a term deposit (what do you call them in the US? CD's?).
No, you won't get much return but you're not taking much risk.
As soon as those loans start accruing interest then pay them back as quickly as possible. Do not make the mistake of having money in the bank earning x% while you have a loan accruing y% where y > x. Paying back the loan is risk free and therefore the best investment you can make.
Actually the National Bank of New Zealand (www.nbnz.co.nz) does this. You can email the bank only through the Online Banking system which works pretty much like a pared down web mail system.
I was part of a University team that did quite well during the years. Our best result was 2nd in New Zealand for one competition.
Anway - some tips:
1. Read the question extremely closely before you start. It is frustrating to miss an important detail *after* you've written a lot of code.
2. Plan carefully before you start. One of my team members was very talented at finding approaches that would work without problems. The other two members of our team could then implement them reliably. You cannot waste time on an incorrect approach.
3. Have some algorithms pre-prepared. Examine previous questions for clues. Generally, we always saw date style problems (what day of the week is 24 November, 3100?) and area style (take a sheet of metal, cut out some shapes, what area is left?) problems. Both of those tended to be difficult and worth a lot to fix. Having an infinite precision math library ready to go is very useful.
4. Keep track of time and don't ever give up coding. You might get the answer in just before the deadline and that can be the difference.
I'm a New Zealander and did a conjoint BSc/BCom in Computer Science and Operations Management. Conjoint means that I did 2 degrees in 4 years (most NZ Bachelor's degrees take 3 years).
I did a BCom (Bachelor of Commerce) because I felt it would help me understand business a whole lot better than a science degree. So far I've been proved right - being able to talk to business people in their terms and convert that back to the realm of software is a very lucrative skill.
So don't lie to your boss.
Never lie to your boss - it's always better to admit you made a mistake then fix it.
You may not believe but there are other ways of taxing based on road mileage. Every vehicle has an odometer which tracks the distance travelled - use that.
In New Zealand, we have a tax on petrol to fund roads and other useful things. Because diesel vehicles can get vastly different fuel efficiency they use a Road User Charges (RUC) system.
You can buy RUCs from many places like post offices or AA stores. You must keep your RUCs up to date or you face a fairly steep fine (I think it's 3 times what the RUCs would have cost you). The police check the RUCs every time they do a routine stop. Normally the distance travelled is measured from the odometer however large truck and trailer units will often have a hub mounted distance meter (I don't know why).
Fairly simple and doesn't involve expensive privacy-invading tracking units.
And while we're about things - don't bother whinging about increased taxes. The price of petrol in the US is about a third what much of the rest of the world pays.
"India doesn't deserve the prosperity since it contributed to the instabilty of the region by developing nuclear capability against UN, US and G7 wishes."
Pot, kettle, black?
India developed a nuclear capability because they thought Pakistan would develop a nuclear capability. And, unfortunately, vice versa.
Those two countries have been fairly frosty or downright nasty ever since the partition.
The US developed its nuclear capability partly because they thought that Nazi Germany was. More importantly, the US refined this technology (and continues to do so) to the utmost degree because of their fear of the USSR doing the same.
Therefore, how can you judge India badly for doing the exact same thing as you yourself did.
Certainly the US has been doing a pretty good job in contributing to instability in the Middle East for the past, oh, 30 years or so.
The point is not improving living conditions in third world countries dragging the US economy down but allowing those countries to compete fairly. i.e. quite often in free trade discussions the US is all for free trade when it benefits them but is very unwilling to go the other way. i.e. there are huge barriers to exporting lamb to the US. Given that NZ can ship lamb across the Pacific and have it in the US at better quality and a cheaper price (without tariffs) than the home-grown stuff how, exactly, is that fair competition?
A: A link would have been good...
B: Umm, I'm sorry, you're flat wrong here. In most surveys NZ comes in at number 3 for openness of our trade barriers, generally behind Hong Kong and Singapore. Basically, we have no tariffs or quotas or any barriers of that nature. We are currently GM-free but that is very likely changing and a cause for quite a lot of debate. The only barriers you are likely to see exporting to NZ are the need to pass Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries requirements - which are necessary because are economy is very heavily biased towards primary production and we cannot afford a devastating pest.
C: Quibbling point - the EU is not a country - not that that really makes a lot of difference. Having said that, regardless of the size of the economies, it is a lot easier for the US to focus those resources on, say, defencse than for the EU.
D: I don't have a source at hand - however similar figures are frequently quoted. The point here is that the US controls many more resources per capita than any other country.
E: I'm just quoting the standard argument in favour of free trade.
As a citizen of a fairly small first world country (New Zealand) that is very dependant on exporting and as an employee of a company not too dissimilar to IBM (although I speak for myself) I have a slightly different view.
To be pointed, to rail against this kind of move on the basis that your job will disappear strikes me as whinging - or worse. Effectively, by saying that, you are saying that your standard of living is so important that your customers and the rest of the world should pay for your comfort. Let me explain.
If the US decides to put in some form of protectionism to protect these jobs then the cost of software to your customers will increase (or at least be higher that what it would otherwise be). This increases the costs of goods and services your customers might export. Secondly, foreign companies who can make use of the cheaper labour will do that and start undercutting the high export prices you charge.
IBM doesn't really have much of a choice here. All of IBM's competitors are looking at doing the same because if they can provide the same service at a cheaper cost then clients will ask for that. In the short term, if IBM manages to move faster and do this more effectively than its competitors (something that is very hard to do), then there are some fairly good profits to be made. In the long term, if this works, then all of IBM's competitors will do the same and the cost of software will decrease. This is all standard economics.
In the even longer term everything will even out a bit more. The Indian programmers will start spending their money and so the rest of the Indian economy will start feeding off that and therefore get more prosperous. Slowly prices will rise and maybe, just maybe, India will have a standard of living equal to a first world country.
The really interesting thing about the free trade argument is that in the long term this kind of change supposedly can be acheived with the existing first world countries being dragged down (at least not too much). I'm not sure I really believe this claim though.
Now to get a little bit more harsh. The US is the largest and richest economy in the world. You also control something like 90% of the world's resources with about 4% of the world's population. You have also shown yourself more than willing to use violence to take more resources on fairly flimsy pretexes.
Exactly why should you keep on controlling this much of the world's wealth? When suddenly a foreign country works out what you do and does it better you start trying to diddle them.
In general, the road to continued wealth for a country is to have better innovation. I don't really think the US has much of a problem there.
On an individual level, if somebody can provide the same skills as you provide at a cheaper cost then you need to get better skills. This is harsh but whinging and expecting the world to provide you a living is the mark of a somebody who will find themselves marginalised fairly quickly.
Apply standard change management advice.
If you don't know what that is then go get someone to tell you. (Disclosure: I work for a large company that, amongst a lot of things, does change management).
The project I'm working on has a large change management component and I'm impressed with the sense of the person in charge of it.
Things to do:
Get the users together and explain HIPAA to them. Explain why it is important to the public (i.e. why you need good security). Explain the consequences of failure. People will understand if you actually explain the reasoning to them.
Give them chances to ask question and modify what you do. People are happier to sign on to things if they feel they've got some input into it.
Work on the IT side and get it work pretty well. Create detailed, clear, easy step by step instructions that work. Make sure you've got staff (i.e. you) available to provide quick support when it inevitably doesn't quite work.
Make sure you've got a high level executive sponsor who understands the political issues and is happy to give you the support you need. (i.e. authority to fire if need be.)
I would put in place a monitoring process. If a user isn't doing the right thing then grab them and talk to them.
If there's something you can do to fix their problem then do that. There may be technical things you can do that will get to them to do it right.
If they don't shape up once you've done that then you grab your executive sponsor and have a solemn meeting telling them to do things right. (This meeting has an implicit threat of firing behind it so it tends to work). Make a written record of this meeting.
If all that doesn't work then you start going through the due diligence firing process i.e. written warnings before firing. HR people know how to do this.
IANAL.
If you have worries then go see one.
I am not a lawyer but I've studied New Zealand contract law. Both New Zealand and Canada have common law systems - most of contract law is based on UK cases which both judiciaries look on as "highly persuasive". Canadian law (statute or case) may override what I say here.
Check your employment contract and anything they have said to you in order to induce you to sign that employment contract. Secondly check the local labour law that applies to your area. If you are entitled to anything under any of the above then you are due that whether or not you agree not to sue them.
Both you and your employer have agreed to this and that's your starting point. Neither party can retroactively change the provisions of a contract except in certain circumstances.
Now if they want you to give up your right to sue then they need to offer you some form of consideration for that. This means they must give you more money (or something else good) in exchange. That's perfectly valid but even then the courts may look on your employer's actions with suspicion. In general the courts don't like people making contracts which exclude their jurisdiction. PayPal got hit by that recently.
Contracts for settlement are generally used in more specific circumstances. i.e. you are, in fact, sueing or about to sue them in some specific cause of action. A general purpose one probably wouldn't hold up in New Zealand but, I suspect, would in the US. I can't speak for Canada.
I suggest that you examine any reasons you might have for sueing them. If you think you might have anything you might get home on then go see a lawyer and talk it over.
Also examine what the working environment was like in general. Is it likely that you will get sick in the future from something that happened to you while employed by them. Important point: was it reasonably forseeable for them to predict that? i.e. if some new disease/syndrome comes up but your employer could not have known what they were doing would cause it then you won't be able to sue them in negligence because negligence requires the harm to reasonably forseeable (Donahue v Stevenson I believe).
In conclusion: if you're worried consult a lawyer. If they've done something that you could possible sue for consult a lawyer. If they haven't then take the money.
"those who would give up essential liberty for temporary security deserves neither liberty nor security"
Benjamin Franklin
[Every license includes that clause. It's probably unenforceable.]
IANAL but it's very probably unenforceable in NZ (and probabaly the UK as well).
Relevant case is Dunlop Pnuematic Tyre Co v Selfridges. Dunlop sold some tyres to a distributor with a clause restricting the onselling price. It was held that a third party, not a party of the original contract, cannot be bound by any restrictions.
BTW, IANAL.
Contracts made while severely under the influence of alcohol are voidable. This means that when you get sober you can void it. Or you can decide to ratify it. Gibbons v Wright (1954) 91 CLR 423 is the authority for this.
Voiding the contract appears to be ab initio i.e. they give you back your money - you give them back the software and everything is returned to the start (Hermann v Charlesworth [1905] 2 KB 123.).
In NZ minor's contracts are covered by the Minors Contracts Act 1969. It's statute not common law so doesn't hold in the US but the principle is that people over 20 are of full age. People 18 and 19 (and employment contracts) can have a contract enforced against them unless the terms are 'harsh or unconscionable' or the 'consideration is so inadequate as to be unconscionable'. People under 18 can't have contracts enforced against them unless it's 'fair and reasonable'. This means looking at the whole circumstances.
However NZ has fairly strict consumer legislation - it includes statutory guarantees of quality and other good stuff - and you can't contract out of it unless it's for business purposes (and even then it's difficult).
It would be interesting to see what would happen if somebody brought an action under this legislation.