在Palmer & Ors诉昆士兰州一案中，2015年3月27日了解违反合同条款的情况。在这种情况下，判断被发现分析什么雇员行为被归类为在雇佣过程中。在这种情况下，判断分析哪些行为需要作为员工行为的一部分，以及在雇佣范围内需要考虑哪些。这些投诉有助于理解公司对人民负有的注意义务。法院认为雇员对业主应尽的注意义务。新南威尔士州诉佩奇案(2002)60 NSWLR 371也巩固了这一立场。判决还显示了法院将考虑的不准确的诉状。因此，违约需要表明公司所遭遇的具体损害。该公司需要向法庭证明，根据玛蒂娜的行为，他们遭受了有形损失。在这种模式下，法院会考虑合同协议的条款。在某些情况下，本条禁止反悔可以用来了解法律的适用何时不能实施。
In the case of Palmer & Ors v State of Queensland 27 March 2015 to understand about the breach of the contractual terms. In this case, the judgement was found to analyze what employee actions are classified as being within the course of employment. In this case, the judgement analyses what actions needs to be considered as a part of the employee actions and what needs to be considered in the scope of the employment. The complaints help in understanding the duty of care that is owed by the company to the people. The courts deem the duty of care that is owed by the employees to the owners. The case of New South Wales v Paige (2002) 60 NSWLR 371 also consolidates this position. The judgment also shows the inaccurate pleadings that will be considered by the courts. Hence the breach of the contract needs to show the specific damages that was encountered by the company. The company needs to prove to the courts that they suffered tangible losses based on the acts of Martina. In this paradigm, the courts are found to consider the terms of the contractual agreement. In some cases, the promissory estoppel can be used to understand when the application of the laws cannot be implemented.