On Jul 2, 7:37 am, Stan Brown <the_stan_br...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> If I remember correctly, the OP has not given us any indication that
> there was an offer of a specific period of employment. Therefore, I
> can't see how the oft-mentioned issues of estoppel (if that's the
> right word) and turning down other offers based on this offer have
> any effect whatever.
Estoppel, an equitable concept, comes into play only if there isn't a straight legal basis for claiming damages, such as for breach of contract. The equity courts, themselves originally a church court completely separate from the legal, or king's court, centuries ago began providing remedies to petitioners whose remedies at law were inadequate, and still today (even after the merger of law and equity courts in most USA states) the general rule is that equity will not step in if there is an adequate remedy at law. Otherwise, the plaintiff would simply rely on the contract and make a claim at law, where his proof would be easier and his available range of damages greater.
To win an estoppel claim, the plaintiff has to show that he changed his position to his detriment in reliance on a representation or promise by defendant, such that even if the promise was not a binding contract, plaintiff can recover the costs he suffered as a result. Note that this is generally limited to the incidental expenses incurred (moving, placing ads looking for another job, etc.) in an amount that would put the plaintiff back in the same position he would have been if he had not acted in reliance on the broken promise; it does not allow him to claim the much broader range of damages (lost profits, the difference between the contract price and the amount paid, consequential damages for the zillion-dollar job he turned down to take this one) available to a plaintiff alleging breach of contract.
In MD, and I suspect in most states, an agreement of employment _is_ a contract, just one that (unless stated) has no definite or minimum duration and can be terminated by either party at any time for any reason not invidiously discriminatory, or for no reason (aka "employment at will"). The consideration, and the subject of the agreement is, that the employee agrees to spend his time and effort working for the employer, in return for which the employer agrees to pay wages or salary in a certain amount. The trouble with pursuing OP's example as a contract claim isn't because employment isn't a contract, it's because there are no contract damages if the employer did in fact pay the employee the agreed wages for any period of time, and then unilaterally changed the terms of continued employment (as he has a legal right to do). The employee, if that happens, then has the legal right to either (1) quit or (2) accept the new terms, forming a new contract (also of indefinite length) on the new terms.
The fact that an employee in most states can go to his state labor dept. for assistance in collecting unpaid wages does not disprove that the employment agreement is a contract. Rather, it shows that, by statute, employment agreements are contracts that the state is particularly interested in enforcing for a variety of reasons, at least in terms of payment for work already done.
Not the least of those reasons is that the state does not want to wind up with its citizens going on the dole unnecessarily, and having the taxpayers support an indigent, cheated employee when that is really the employer's obligation. The cynical would say the state's main motive is to protect their own treasury more than to protect the rights of downtrodden workers. But the result is the same.
> Morally, I agree the employer is obligated; but
> legally the employer is quite free to change the offered salary at
> any time before or after the start of employment, regardless of
> whether the employee has turned down other offers or incurred moving
> expenses.
Correct. But if an employee incurs significant moving costs and other incidental expenses to come take a job before the employer then reduces the offered pay by a significant amount within a short time, he may well have an estoppel claim. It depends, of course, on what the court or jury finds to be fair, based on what they consider "significant", and "short." The whole point of an equity claim is, a sharp dealer doesn't get to screw somebody just because their victim's legal rights fall between the cracks. Equity makes sure that the person who would be left without an adequate remedy at law is still treated fairly, even if he won't be able to get the full measure of damages he could get if he _did_ have a viable legal claim for breach of contract.
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
No comments:
Post a Comment