Embry v. Hargadine, McKittrick Dry Goods Co. case brief summary
127 Mo.App. 383, 105 S.W. 777 (
SYNOPSIS:
Appeal from judgment of the St. Louis City Circuit Court (Missouri) for the employer on an alleged breach of an employment contract.
OVERVIEW: Appellant employee of respondent continued working for respondent after the expiration of his written contract of employment. Appellant alleged that when he asked respondent's president if his employment would continue for another year, he was told that he was all right and need not worry. Appellant understood this statement to be a renewal of his contract. When he was terminated, appellant sued for breach of contract. The trial court ruled for the employer.
HOLDING:
The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that the employer's words were sufficient to constitute the renewal of the employment contract.
RULES:
-To constitute a contract there must be a meeting of the minds of the parties, and both must agree to the same thing in the same sense.
-The inner intention of parties to a conversation subsequently alleged to create a contract, cannot either make a contract of what transpired or prevent one from arising, if the words used were sufficient to constitute a contract.
-In so far as their intention is an influential element, it is only such intention as the words or acts of the parties indicate; not one secretly cherished which is inconsistent with those words or acts.
-The primary object of construction in contract law is to discover the intention of the parties.
-This intention in express contracts is embodied in the words used and is deduced therefrom.
-This rule applies to oral contracts and contracts in writing, and it is recognized by courts of equity.
OUTCOME: The court reversed and remanded because the employer's words were sufficient to constitute the renewal of the employment contract.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
-->
127 Mo.App. 383, 105 S.W. 777 (
SYNOPSIS:
Appeal from judgment of the St. Louis City Circuit Court (Missouri) for the employer on an alleged breach of an employment contract.
OVERVIEW: Appellant employee of respondent continued working for respondent after the expiration of his written contract of employment. Appellant alleged that when he asked respondent's president if his employment would continue for another year, he was told that he was all right and need not worry. Appellant understood this statement to be a renewal of his contract. When he was terminated, appellant sued for breach of contract. The trial court ruled for the employer.
HOLDING:
The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that the employer's words were sufficient to constitute the renewal of the employment contract.
RULES:
-To constitute a contract there must be a meeting of the minds of the parties, and both must agree to the same thing in the same sense.
-The inner intention of parties to a conversation subsequently alleged to create a contract, cannot either make a contract of what transpired or prevent one from arising, if the words used were sufficient to constitute a contract.
-In so far as their intention is an influential element, it is only such intention as the words or acts of the parties indicate; not one secretly cherished which is inconsistent with those words or acts.
-The primary object of construction in contract law is to discover the intention of the parties.
-This intention in express contracts is embodied in the words used and is deduced therefrom.
-This rule applies to oral contracts and contracts in writing, and it is recognized by courts of equity.
OUTCOME: The court reversed and remanded because the employer's words were sufficient to constitute the renewal of the employment contract.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
-->
No comments:
Post a Comment