There was a time, and not so very long ago, that when a young man asked her father for a young woman’s hand in marriage – and in those days men actually did that – it was taken for granted that she was incapable of deciding such things wisely for herself, and her hand was the only one he could ask for.

Even in MDCs – more developed countries, for those who have not caught up with customs in the “developed” world – if her father agreed, and the young man backed out of the commitment, it was contrary to a law called breach of promise, which was derived from the ancient "breach of the honour of fidelity" concept.

In such cases, the young man could be sued. I don’t actually remember what the penalty was in dollars and cents, but Wikipedia states: "Breach of promise is a common-law tort, abolished in many jurisdictions. It was also called breach of contract to marry, and the remedy awarded was known as heart balm."

From at least the Middle Ages until the early 20th century, a man's promise of engagement to marry a woman was considered, in many jurisdictions, a legally binding contract. If the man were to subsequently change his mind, he would be said to be in "breach" of this promise and subject to litigation for damages.

My, how customs have changed.

One place in which it has not changed, however, is in the employment world, where there are three common-law torts that still exist.

[caption id="attachment_984948" align="alignnone" width="897"] Justice Frank Seepersad -[/caption]

The first, which will be discussed today, is duty of fidelity that an employer has toward employees and that employees have toward the employer. This is a term implied in every contract of employment: that the employee (and please remember that management employees are included in this, as well as all public officers, who are employees of the State) is to serve honestly and faithfully. This will include handling property of the organisation – even stationery – using computers and other equipment

and the internet only for the purposes for which they were allocated, not to play online games or watch pornography; not serving competitors; and maintaining strict confidentiality in relation to information and data which are meant to be kept confidential.

In a recent Industrial Court award, in trade disputes 143 and 144 of 2000, the breach of the duty of fidelity was the issue cited. In that case the issue was a technician working for a competitor of his employer, doing largely the same thing he was employed to do for his employer, but at a cheaper rate. He was dismissed for breaching the fundamental duty of fidelity.

Going beyond, on the legal ladder, in the High Court and the august canon of the common law: High Court claim number CV 209-03930, dealt with the dismissal of an employee who had deleted or misplaced, without authority, a database consisting of human-resource records dealing with employees’ benefits statistics. Justice Frank Seepersad had to determine wh