Brief Fact Summary. Jenkins (D) president in 1920 made a promise to Lee (P) when Lee (P) was hired that he would pay Lee (P) a $1,500 pension at age 60, â€œregardless of what happensâ€. Lee seeks enforcement of this promise.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Presidents have the authority to bind their company to acts in the scope of regular and usual conduct, but not for contracts of extraordinary natures.
Issue. Do presidents have the authority to bind their company to acts in the scope of regular and usual conduct, and not for contracts of extraordinary natures?
Held. (Medina, J.) Yes. Presidents have the authority to bind their company to acts in the scope of regular and usual conduct, but not for contracts of extraordinary natures. Courts have noted the injustice created by corporations when they disavow at their convenience the authority of the officer’s making contracts. President’s can generally hire, fire, and fix employee compensation. However, employment contracts for life or permanents are usually found extraordinary and unauthorized. Life time contracts have been upheld in situations wherein the employee had to give up consideration, such as leaving another job, leaving another business, or where the services were vitally essential to the corporation. The similarity that pension promises have to unenforceable lifetime contracts is if they are of an indefinite period. Such an agreement is not unreasonable, they are necessary and beneficial to corporations as a common corporate fringe benefit. Apparent authority is a question on fact and circumstances of the negotiation. Accordingly, and reasonably, there is support to both sides on whether Yardley held authority to make the contract, the trial court erred in determining the issue as a matter of law. Reversed.
The acts also must be of such a character that they can be naturally and reasonably accounted for in no other way than by the existence of some contract in relation to the subject matter in dispute.View Full Point of Law