Embry
was employed by Hargadine.His employment contract was about to expire.He went to his boss and threatened
to quit if he didn't get a new contract. Hargadine said something that
Embry took to mean that Hargadine agreed to reemploy the Embry for another
year.
Embry
was fired in less than a year, and he sued.
The
Trial Court found for Hargadine.Embry appealed.
The
Appellate Court reversed the decision and remanded.
The
Appellate Court found that the Trial Court had erred when it gave
instructions to the jury that not only do you have to find that the
conversation happened as Embry claimed it did, but that those particular
words constituted a contract.
The
inner intention of parties to a conversation subsequently alleged to
create a contract cannot either make a contract of what transpired, or
prevent one from arising, if the words used were sufficient to constitute
a contract.
The
Court found that a contract is formed by outward expressions and
excludes all questions in regards to unexpressed intentions. (The objective theory of contract formation.)
The
Court found that it is a matter of law whether or not the boss's
words could be understood by a reasonable person as agreeing to form a
contract.The case was remanded to go
over the version of the events given by Embry and decide whether the boss's words would constitute assent to a
valid contract of reemployment.
