Morris interviewed for a job as plant manager at Northland Bearings and was offered a two-year contract if she could relocate and start the new job within three weeks. Morris agreed. Northland promised to follow up the oral agreement with a written contract setting forth all the agreed terms, but the contract had not arrived within several days. Morris wanted to give two-weeks' notice to her
present employer, so she called Northland to check on the written contract and was told it was ready to be sent to her and assured her the job was hers. She gave notice of her intention to quit her present job and moved two states away to the Northland location. When Morris arrived for her first day of work, she was told someone else with better qualifications had been found and hired for the position. Morris:
a. has no recourse since she never received a written contract, as required by the statute of frauds for a contract that cannot be performed within one year of its making.
b. has no recourse because promises are not enforceable if they do not meet all the requirements of a contract, and here Morris lacked capacity.
c. may be entitled to good-faith reliance damages under the doctrine of promissory estoppel to avoid injustice.
d. cannot enforce the contract since she had not actually started working at Northland.
c
You might also like to view...
A patent is granted by the federal government giving the owner control of the manufacture or other use of an invention for 20 years
Indicate whether the statement is true or false
What are the ethical responsibilities of board members?
What will be an ideal response?
In the sentence Our company will be hiring 50 new employees, the words will be hiring are a(n) ____
A) independent clause B) dependent clause C) verb phrase D) complete predicate
Three employees working for the same company were found to have stolen company cargo. Two of the employees were white, and one was black. The two white employees were fired, but not the black employee. If the white employees sue, the court will most likely decide:
a. for the employer, because the employees were guilty of theft b. for the employer, because the employees were employees at will c. for the employee, because the employer treated him differently based on his race d. for the employee, because his employer was within its discretion to fire some, but not all employees guilty of theft