Thank you for your follow-up, XXXXXXX.
Thank you for your follow-up. My apologies on the delay, I was offline for part of the weekend. Please allow me to assist you this afternoon. I was not in any way avoiding my response, I was just not online. Please allow me to respond directly.
I expressed my disagreement verbally, and in writing, making reference to my active contract, immediately in 2011 year.
That is a good point, and may permit you to keep that claim alive.
They ignored my complaint but did not renegotiate the contract in file, and did not ask me to sign a new contract. Thus the contract in file is my active contract?
Arguably yes, the contract is still valid. But the issue is whether or not you likewise continued to work, which can be argued could be seen as a modification of terms, but also how substantial, significant, or relevant that breach on their part was to your employment.
I had continued working, because I need to work, and I established a formal claim in the court, immediately in 2011 year, which is in process. Remember that the contract included the clause of the use of the company car as part of the condition to accept the job.
Ahh, I see, so you would then be arguing that this was be reliance on their promises to your detriment--that makes sense and does strengthen your suit.
If they may remove this contract's clause, it means they may remove any other clause in my contract and that it is invalid?
That depends on how the contract is written. If it has what is known as a 'severability' clause which essentially means that if one part of the contract is invalid, the other parts survive, then the contract likewise survives a partial breach. But if no such language was put in, the claim that the whole argument was broken is very strong and valid.
The contract also include other clause which they had never honored, but which I did not noticed until I reviewed the contract because of the car's removal. I continue being part of the company, but in a very difficult situation. Are you telling that because I did not challenged the clause not being followed, I lost any right to ask for its compliance?
That would surely be their argument, and it has validity. Contracts pertaining to breach, if they remain n force and remain being followed for other reasons can be considered to have 'waived' that initial violation, if there is one.