ProfessorMelissa A. Hale
CaseCast™ – "What you need to know"
Brief Fact Summary. The Plaintiff, Embry (Plaintiff), worked for the Defendant, Hargadine, McKittrick Dry Goods Co. (Defendant). The Plaintiff’s contract expired in December and he met with Defendant’s President to renew it for a year. The President said “go ahead, you’re all right; get your men out and don’t let that worry you.” The contract was terminated a few months later. The Plaintiff brought suit based on breach of contract.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. If a reasonable person would understand the oral promise to be an agreement for employment, then it is a valid contract.
Issue. Was the oral promise by the Defendant Corporation’s president a valid contract?
Held. Yes. Reversed.
If the conversation happened as Plaintiff said and Plaintiff understood that he was employed, then there was a valid contract in law. It is only necessary that a reasonable man would have construed what the President said to be an offer of employment offer and that Plaintiff so understood it.
“In exceptional cases, a promisor may be bound to perform something which he did not intend to promise, or a promisee may not be entitled to require that performance which he understood to be promised to him.”
The meeting of minds which is essential to the formation of a contract is not determined by the secret intention of the parties, but by their expressed intention, the latter of which may be wholly at variance with the former.View Full Point of Law