|
MCINTOSH v. MURPHY Hawaii Supreme Court 52 Haw. 29, 469 P.2d 177 (1970)
Facts
In March 1964, George Murphy (Defendant) was in California and seeking prospective management personnel in mobile dealerships in Hawaii and one of the prospectives was the Dick McIntosh (Plaintiff). A month later, the defendant contacted the plaintiff and offered the assistant sales manager position for one of the dealerships; the details were fully discussed but no contract was made. Later, the position was changed to sales manager. Relied on a one-year oral employment contract, the plaintiff arrived in Honolulu on April 26, 1964, and began work on the following day. At this point, the plaintiff moved and sold his possession, and leased an apartment to work in Hawaii. He continued working until July 16, 1964 and subsequently was discharged due to his inability to close deals and train salesmen. The plaintiff brought this suit alleging the oral employment agreement was in violation of the Statute of Frauds, but the lower court denied the applicability of the Statute. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $12,103.40. The defendants appeal.
March 1964 – interview for assistant sales manager
April 25 (Saturday), 1964 – notification and acceptance of sales manager position
April 26 (Sunday), 1964 – P arrived in Honolulu
April 27, 1964 – work begins
July 16, 1964 – discharged due to inability
Issue
Does an act of an employee moving to another State solely for the employment based on one-year oral contract, and later discharged due to his inability constitute wrongful discharge regardless of Statute of Frauds?
Rules
Section 217A of the Second Restatement of Contracts (The doctrine of estoppel)
: (1) A promise which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance on the part of the promisee or a third person and which does induce the action or forbearance is enforceable notwithstanding the Statute of Frauds if injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise. The remedy granted for breach is to be limited as justice requires.
(2) In determining whether injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise, the following circumstances are significant: (a) the availability and adequacy of other remedies, particularly cancellation and restitution; (b) the definite and substantial character of the action or forbearance in relation to the remedy sought; (c) the extent to which the action or forbearance corroborates evidence of the making and terms of the promise, or the making and terms are otherwise established by clear and convincing evidence; (d) the reasonableness of the action or forbearance; (e) the extent to which the action or forbearance was forseeable by the promisor.
Application
First, the defendant contends that if a contract is not written and it is more than one year, the contract is unenforceable, so the oral contract here is also unenforceable. There are some arguments regarding computing the days. If the intervening Saturday and Sunday prior to the starting day would not be counted, it would make less than a year, therefore SOF would not apply. The court eventually found the total period is one year. However, as Section 217A (1) of the Second Restatement of Contracts states, a promise is enforceable if injustice can be avoided only by enforcement notwithstanding the Statute of Frauds. Here, the defendant seriously changed his position by moving 2200 miles from California to Hawaii in days, selling and moving his possessions and leasing a new apartment were initiated by the reliance on the oral employment contract between the parties and it was required to perform his duties. Because now, the plaintiff was left in Hawaii without a job and reasons, the only way to avoid injustice is enforcement of the contract. Therefore, 217A (1) of the Second Restatement of Contracts, the oral employment is enforceable.
Holding
Yes, discharging the employee was an injustice.
Conclusion
Affirmed
Live class feedback
이슈를 간추리자면 다음과 같습니다.
1. Whether the oral agreement was one year duration (SOF)
Saturday, Sunday를 넣으면 1년이 되지만 미포함 시 1년이라는 요건이 충족되지 않습니다. 그러므로 문서가 불필요하게 되고, SOF와는 관련이 없어집니다.
2. Whether it was terminable at will
SOF에 위배된다면 enforceable하지 않고 필수 고용 기간 1년이라는 부분을 고려하지 않아도 되며 terminable at will이 됩니다. 즉 고용주인 defendant에게 유리하게 작용합니다. 여기서 법원은 1년 이상의 계약이라고 판단했습니다.
1 year ⇨ NOT terminable at will (1년이라는 oral agreement provision이 있었으니까)
다만, 1년 미만도 기간이 정해져 있어 terminal at will은 아닙니다.
3. Whether there was illegal discharge
법원은 있었다고 판단했습니다. 특히나 사는 주를 옮겼다는 것에 무게를 두고 판단했습니다.
법원은 계약 기간을 1년이라고 보고 SOF를 적용했습니다. 하지만 그렇게 되면 SOF에 해당하지 않기에 약자인 노동자가 피해를 봅니다. 법원은 정황상 이러한 판단은 injustice라고 보았기 때문에 관점을 equitable estoppel로 옮겨서 원고를 보호했습니다.
|