For Your Data Lee V. Jenkins Bros. Representative Brief
March 26, 2016
Edit
Lee v. Jenkins Bros. case brief summary
268 F.2d 357 (1959)
CASE FACTS
To own plaintiff to travel for accused corporation, accused president orally promised that plaintiff would have credit for thirteen years of service amongst plaintiff's employer, for purposes of a pension excogitation that was afterward incorporated yesteryear accused corporation. The plaintiff failed to run across 1 of the limited requirements for receiving the pension. When plaintiff did non have the pension, he sued defendants, exactly dismissal of the electrical load was affirmed.
DISCUSSION
Dismissal affirmed, every mo at that spot was insufficient show of understanding yesteryear accused president to pay pension to plaintiff, fifty-fifty if he did non run across excogitation requirements. Also, statute of frauds prevented enforcement of accused president's oral guarantee of obligation he in addition to plaintiff believed accused corporation owed to plaintiff.
Recommended Supplements for Corporations in addition to Business Associations Law
268 F.2d 357 (1959)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Plaintiff appealed dismissal of his electrical load yesteryear the USA District Court (Connecticut), inward activeness to recover pension payments allegedly due nether an oral understanding amongst accused president, made on his ain concern human relationship in addition to on behalf of accused corporation.CASE FACTS
To own plaintiff to travel for accused corporation, accused president orally promised that plaintiff would have credit for thirteen years of service amongst plaintiff's employer, for purposes of a pension excogitation that was afterward incorporated yesteryear accused corporation. The plaintiff failed to run across 1 of the limited requirements for receiving the pension. When plaintiff did non have the pension, he sued defendants, exactly dismissal of the electrical load was affirmed.
DISCUSSION
- First, accused president's controversy that plaintiff would have the pension "regardless of what happens" did non test plaintiff was promised the pension fifty-fifty if he did non run across the excogitation requirements.
- Second, since both plaintiff in addition to accused president believed accused corporation had an obligation to plaintiff, accused president's guarantee of that obligation was a suretyship agreement.
- Thus, it had to hold upward inward writing for statute of frauds purposes, regardless of whether accused president genuinely had authorisation to bind accused corporation.
Dismissal affirmed, every mo at that spot was insufficient show of understanding yesteryear accused president to pay pension to plaintiff, fifty-fifty if he did non run across excogitation requirements. Also, statute of frauds prevented enforcement of accused president's oral guarantee of obligation he in addition to plaintiff believed accused corporation owed to plaintiff.
Recommended Supplements for Corporations in addition to Business Associations Law