Hayes v. Plantations Steel Co. case brief summary
438 A.2d 1091 (1982)
CASE FACTS
The employee worked for the employer for 25 years. Starting one year after he retired and continuing for three years, the employee received an annual sum from the employer. The employee testified that approximately one week before his actual retirement he spoke with an officer of the employer who stated that the employee would be taken care of. There was no mention of a sum of money and no formal authorization for payments by the shareholders. The lower court held that the employer owed the employee an annual sum for four years because the employee had a right to expect the continued payments.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The court reversed the judgment in favor of the employee and determined that the employer did not have a contractual obligation to pay the employee a pension.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
438 A.2d 1091 (1982)
CASE SYNOPSIS
The Superior Court (Rhode Island)
granted judgment in favor of plaintiff employee on the basis that he
had an implied-in-fact contract with defendant employer to pay him a
yearly pension. The court held that the payments to the employee were
not governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA), 29 U.S.C.S. §§ 1001-1461, and consequently he was not
entitled to attorney's fees under § 1132(g) of ERISA. Both parties
appealed.CASE FACTS
The employee worked for the employer for 25 years. Starting one year after he retired and continuing for three years, the employee received an annual sum from the employer. The employee testified that approximately one week before his actual retirement he spoke with an officer of the employer who stated that the employee would be taken care of. There was no mention of a sum of money and no formal authorization for payments by the shareholders. The lower court held that the employer owed the employee an annual sum for four years because the employee had a right to expect the continued payments.
DISCUSSION
- The court disagreed and reversed the judgment.
- The court held that the employee did not supply the required consideration to make the employer's promise binding.
- The court held that the employee announced his intent to retire well in advance of any promise by the employer to pay him, and therefore the intention to retire was arrived at without regard to any promise by the employer.
- The court held that the employee's long years of dedicated service was legally insufficient consideration because his service was rendered without being induced by the employer's promise.
CONCLUSION
The court reversed the judgment in favor of the employee and determined that the employer did not have a contractual obligation to pay the employee a pension.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
No comments:
Post a Comment