Allied Corporation in Boston offers a job to Carol, who lives in Denver. Carol orally agrees to work for Allied for two years. She moves her family to Boston and begins work. Three months later, she is fired for no stated cause. She files a suit against Allied for rein¬statement or pay. Allied pleads the lack of a written con¬tract. In whose favor is the court likely to rule, and why?
mnm
In this scenario, the court is likely to rule in favor of Carol, the employee. This is because even though there is no written contract between Carol and Allied Corporation, there is sufficient evidence to establish an enforceable employment contract based on the principle of "promissory estoppel."
Promissory estoppel is a legal doctrine that prevents a party from going back on their promise if the other party has relied on that promise to their detriment. In this case, Carol made an oral agreement with Allied to work for them for two years, which she relied upon by moving her family from Denver to Boston and beginning work.
While a written contract is generally preferred and provides more clarity for both parties, oral contracts can still be legally binding in many situations. In employment cases, courts often consider various factors to determine the existence of an employment contract, such as the parties' intentions, the terms of the agreement, and actions taken in reliance on the agreement.
Carol's move to Boston and her commencement of work serve as strong indications of her reliance on the job offer. Furthermore, the fact that Carol was fired without a stated cause strengthens her case. Termination without a valid reason may be seen as a breach of the implied employment contract, thus allowing Carol to seek reinstatement or pay as a remedy.
In summary, even without a written contract, the court is likely to rule in Carol's favor based on the doctrine of promissory estoppel and the evidence of her reliance on Allied's job offer and subsequent actions.