Schwartzreich v. Bauman-Basch, Inc. case brief summary
131 N.E. 887 (1921)
CASE FACTS
Plaintiff entered into an employment agreement with defendant. When plaintiff was offered more money from another employer, a conversation ensued between defendant and plaintiff, and the first contract was destroyed and a second employment contract was drawn up indicating an increase in plaintiff's salary. Plaintiff sought enforcement of the second contract. A jury entered a verdict in favor of plaintiff, but the trial judge set aside the verdict finding that the evidence did not support jury's conclusion that parties mutually agreed to revoke the first contract, thus the second contract was unenforceable for lack of consideration because plaintiff was already obligated to work for defendant. The appellate court reversed. Defendant appealed.
DISCUSSION
The supreme court affirmed the reversal of judgment in favor of defendant and the reinstatement of jury's verdict because the parties expressly rescinded the first contract; therefore, there was adequate consideration to support the enforcement of the second contract.
CONCLUSION
Reversal of judgment in favor of defendant affirmed because the parties mutually agreed to revoke the first employment contract; therefore, there was adequate consideration to support the enforcement of the second employment contract because defendant promised to pay a higher salary and plaintiff promised to work for defendant.
Suggested law school course materials, hornbooks, and guides for Contract Law
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
131 N.E. 887 (1921)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Defendant appealed the decision of
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial
Department (New York) reversing a judgment in favor of defendant and
reinstating a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff regarding a claim
for breach of contract.CASE FACTS
Plaintiff entered into an employment agreement with defendant. When plaintiff was offered more money from another employer, a conversation ensued between defendant and plaintiff, and the first contract was destroyed and a second employment contract was drawn up indicating an increase in plaintiff's salary. Plaintiff sought enforcement of the second contract. A jury entered a verdict in favor of plaintiff, but the trial judge set aside the verdict finding that the evidence did not support jury's conclusion that parties mutually agreed to revoke the first contract, thus the second contract was unenforceable for lack of consideration because plaintiff was already obligated to work for defendant. The appellate court reversed. Defendant appealed.
DISCUSSION
The supreme court affirmed the reversal of judgment in favor of defendant and the reinstatement of jury's verdict because the parties expressly rescinded the first contract; therefore, there was adequate consideration to support the enforcement of the second contract.
CONCLUSION
Reversal of judgment in favor of defendant affirmed because the parties mutually agreed to revoke the first employment contract; therefore, there was adequate consideration to support the enforcement of the second employment contract because defendant promised to pay a higher salary and plaintiff promised to work for defendant.
Suggested law school course materials, hornbooks, and guides for Contract Law
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
No comments:
Post a Comment