Forrer v. Sears, Roebuck & Co case brief

Forrer v. Sears, Roebuck & Co; (Sup. Ct. of WI, 1967); CB 333; Notes 40

Oral K for “permanent employment”; Need additional consideration for permanent employment

• Facts: D attempted to induce P to work w/Sears (he had a prior long-term relationship w/them) to return as part-time manager. A month later he was promised “permanent” employment as manager in consideration of giving up farming. P discharged w/o cause six months later.
• Issue: Is promissory estoppel possible here?
• Holding: Court said there needed to be additional consideration in order for “permanent” employment to extend as long as employer is in business. (additional consideration such as something benefiting employer). This was an indefinite hiring terminable at will.
• Rule: generally speaking, a contract for permanent employment, for life employment, or for other terms purporting permanent employment, where the employee furnishes no consideration additional to the services incident to the employment, amounts to an indefinite general hiring terminable at the will of either party, and a discharge without cause does not constitute a breach of such contract justifying recovery of damages
• Commentary: why is a contract for permanent employment a contract for employee at will – mutuality agreement. It wouldn’t have been a breach if an employee left before they died, so it can’t be a breach on the employer’s side.