Thanh is the business manager for Stanford Analytics Pty Ltd ("StanfordA"). Thanh is employed under a contract which provides for a salary of $70,000 a year plus bonuses based on her capacity to keep the state of the art (and legal) encryption program up to date and tamper free. The contract provides that either party could terminate the contract on giving of two months notice, but otherwise was to continue for 4 years. Thanh has worked hard to keep the program at the leading edge, and it is used by accountants and lawyers all over the world. Its main benefit was that it ensured confidentiality because of the modern encryption that the program used. In the first year of her contract she achieved a bonus of $50,000 as she secured a major client being a law firm in the tax haven of the Cayman Islands. Halfway through the second year of Thanhs contract she is dismissed from her employment (i.e. sacked) without any notice at all. This was after allegations reached the StanfordA board that she had leaked information about the Cayman Island law firms clients to the Australian media. The leak caused a global crisis with many clients of the law firm being exposed for tax evasion. Most of StanfordAs clients cancelled their orders because of the leaked information. Thanh maintained that she had nothing to do with the leak. Indeed, it was a fellow employee Toc, who contacted the media. He had been jealous of how well Thanh had done at the company and he felt undervalued. He also received a payment from the media organisation.

2 weeks after Thanh was dismissed the factory was burnt down after a protest against tax evasion saw a riot develop which police could not contain. StanfordA terminated all staff and they now say that they can only offer her 2 weeks pay as the contract was frustrated. Could this be correct?