From the contract signed between Weinstein and the company, there are some issues of concern.
First, the company assumed that imposing high fines on an employee would stop him from sexual
abuse. Second, the company also thought that no employee could afford to raise such an amount as
a fine. Considering the second assumption, it gives the employee a leeway to commit the offence
and go away with it so long as he pays the fine. According to the rule of law, the company will have a
case to answer because Weinstein will claim that the company is not justified in sending him home,
and yet he has not refused to pay the fine as per the contract. In this perspective, Weinstein will be
protected by the law, and the company will lose against him.
However, another issue will be raised towards the company. The law prohibits sexual abuse
and harassment, but the company goes ahead to draft a contract that gives an avenue to sexual
perpetrators so long as they can pay the fine. Therefore, the law will find the company liable for
prosecution because of trying to cover up offenders. The rule of law can conclude that when drafting
the contract, the company aimed to collect fines from the perpetrators. Although Weinstein was
wrong and had a case to answer, the agreement between him and the company sets him free, and
the law will now focus on the company. In a real sense, it is not right for Weinstein to be let free, but
the law protects him.
Similarly, it is not fair for the company to draft such a contract that leaves a lacuna that can be
exploited by those capable of paying the fines. In this case, Weinstein will be reinstated, or the
company will be forced by law to compensate him and continue paying him until the contract's
expiry. On the other hand, the company will be answerable to rule on the content and conditions of
its contract. The company's reputation will be jeopardized because of having a contract whose
drafters never looked at the implications that would arise in such cases as that of Weinstein.