 |
Wiki Law School will soon be moving! Please update your bookmarks. Our future address is www.wikilawschool.org |
Varney v. Ditmars: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
(Created page with "{{Infobox Case Brief |court=New York Court of Appeals |citation=111 N.E. 822 |date=February 22, 1916 |subject=Contracts |case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link |link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/varney-v-ditmars |source_type=Video summary |case_text_source=Quimbee }}{{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link |link=https://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/court-of-appeals/1916/217-n-y-223-111-n-e-822-1916.html |case_text_source=Justia }}{{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text...") |
No edit summary |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
|date=February 22, 1916 | |date=February 22, 1916 | ||
|subject=Contracts | |subject=Contracts | ||
|facts=*Ditmars = boss of an architectural firm | |||
*Varney = an employee | |||
*In October 1910, Ditmars hired Varney with an initial salary of $35/week | |||
*Shortly afterward, Varney wanted to accept a position with a different company; however, Ditmars persuaded Varney to stay put | |||
*In early 1911, Ditmars raised Varney's salary to $40/week | |||
*Additionally, Varney put in extra work in exchange for a promise of extra pay from Ditmars | |||
*Disregarding the objections of Ditmars, Varney stayed home on the election day in his village on November 6th 1911 | |||
*Varney called in sick the few days following November 6th 1911 | |||
*Ditmars fired Varney on November 11th 1911 | |||
*Before the end of the year 1911, Ditmars paid the fired Varney $50 for a special work | |||
* | |||
* | |||
* | |||
|procedural_history=* Varney sued Ditmars claiming that he was owed $1,680 | |||
* At trial, Varney (the employee) was the only witness to testify about the profit-sharing verbal contract | |||
* Varney lost | |||
* Varney lost in the Appellate Division in New York state | |||
|issues=If an executory employment contract contains vague & in-definite terms, is it un-enforceable? | |||
|holding=An executory employment contract based on vague & in-definite terms in un-enforceable. | |||
While the vague verbal contract is un-enforceable, Varney may proceed with a [[Contracts/Quantum meruit|''quantum meruit'']] claim. | |||
|judgment=Affirmed | |||
|comments=* [[Contracts Ayres/9th ed. Outline|Contracts_Ayres/9th_ed._Outline#E._Termination_of_Offer]] | |||
* [[Benjamin Cardozo]] dissented that the promise to pay a fair share of the profits is too vague. In Cardozo's opinion, it was clear enough. Moreover, he thought that Varney had been improperly fired. | |||
|case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | |case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | ||
|link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/varney-v-ditmars | |link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/varney-v-ditmars | ||
Latest revision as of 20:44, January 20, 2024
| Varney v. Ditmars | |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals |
|---|---|
| Citation | 111 N.E. 822 |
| Date decided | February 22, 1916 |
Facts
- Ditmars = boss of an architectural firm
- Varney = an employee
- In October 1910, Ditmars hired Varney with an initial salary of $35/week
- Shortly afterward, Varney wanted to accept a position with a different company; however, Ditmars persuaded Varney to stay put
- In early 1911, Ditmars raised Varney's salary to $40/week
- Additionally, Varney put in extra work in exchange for a promise of extra pay from Ditmars
- Disregarding the objections of Ditmars, Varney stayed home on the election day in his village on November 6th 1911
- Varney called in sick the few days following November 6th 1911
- Ditmars fired Varney on November 11th 1911
- Before the end of the year 1911, Ditmars paid the fired Varney $50 for a special work
Procedural History
- Varney sued Ditmars claiming that he was owed $1,680
- At trial, Varney (the employee) was the only witness to testify about the profit-sharing verbal contract
- Varney lost
- Varney lost in the Appellate Division in New York state
Issues
If an executory employment contract contains vague & in-definite terms, is it un-enforceable?
Holding
An executory employment contract based on vague & in-definite terms in un-enforceable.
While the vague verbal contract is un-enforceable, Varney may proceed with a quantum meruit claim.Judgment
Affirmed
Comments
- Contracts_Ayres/9th_ed._Outline#E._Termination_of_Offer
- Benjamin Cardozo dissented that the promise to pay a fair share of the profits is too vague. In Cardozo's opinion, it was clear enough. Moreover, he thought that Varney had been improperly fired.
