�山����

The main legal issue in this case is whether there was a duly constituted contract between the parties. The Respondent made the bare assertion that the communication dated 21 September 2007 mistakenly referred to the cancellation of his appointment, whereas it was a withdrawal of the offer. Therefore, according to the Respondent no contract was created, the Applicant was not a staff member, and his application is not receivable. The Applicant submitted that there was a duly constituted contract between the parties. UNDT found that the offer of appointment accepted by the Applicant and the communications between the parties contained the necessary material terms for the formation of a binding contract. UNDT found that all the essential terms of the appointment were agreed by the parties and there was no basis to find that the parties intended any subsequent document to vary or add to the terms contained in the offer of appointment in any significant respect. UNDT found that there was no evidence to support the Respondent’s averment that the Applicant had failed to satisfy any clearances and formalities. UNDT found that on the particular facts of the case, including the agreement reached and the actions of the parties, there was a binding contract between the Applicant and the Respondent, that the application was receivable, and that UNDP’s refusal to further effectuate the employment relationship on 1 October 2007 was in breach of its contract with the Applicant. Outcome: Having determined the issue of liability in favour of the Applicant, UNDT ordered the parties to file submissions on relief.