《Akers vkentlaw.edu.doc》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《Akers vkentlaw.edu.doc（5页珍藏版）》请在三一文库上搜索。
1、Akers v. J.B. Sedberry, Inc. 286 S.W.2d 617 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1955)Felts, Judge. These two consolidated causes are before us upon a writ of error sued out by J. B. Sedberry, Inc., and Mrs. M. B. Sedberry, defendants below, to review a decree of the Chancery Court, awarding a recovery against them in f
2、avor of each of the complainants, Charles William Akers and William Gambill Whitsitt, for damages for breach of a contract of employment. . . . J. B. Sedberry, Inc., was a Tennessee corporation with its principal place of business at Franklin, Tennessee. Mrs. M. B. Sedberry owned practically all of
3、its stock and was its president and in active charge of its affairs. It was engaged in the business of distributing Jay Bee hammer mills, which were manufactured for it under contract by Jay Bee Manufacturing Company, a Texas corporation, whose plant was in Tyler, Texas, and whose capital stock was
4、owned principally by L. M. Glasgow and B. G. Byars. On July 1, 1947, J. B. Sedberry, Inc., by written contract, employed complainant Akers as Chief Engineer for a term of five . . . His duties were to carry on research for his employer, and to see that the Jay Bee Manufacturing Company, Tyler, Texas
5、, manufactured the mills and parts according to proper specifications. Mrs. M. B. Sedberry guaranteed the employers performance of this contract. On August 1, 1947, J. B. Sedberry, Inc., by written contract, employed complainant Whitsitt as Assistant Chief Engineer for a term of five years . . . His
6、 duties were to assist in the work done by the Chief Engineer. Mrs. M. B. Sedberry guaranteed the employers performance of this contract. Under Mrs. Sedberrys instructions, Akers and Whitsitt moved to Tyler, Texas, began performing their contract duties in the plant of the Jay Bee Manufacturing Comp
7、any, continued working there, and were paid under the contracts until October 1, 1950, when they ceased work, under circumstances hereafter stated. In 1947, when these employment contracts were made, Mrs. Sedberry owned no stock in the Jay Bee Manufacturing Company. In 1948 she purchased the shares
8、of stock in this company which were owned by the Glasgow interests, and in 1949 she purchased the 750 shares owned by her brother, B. G. Byars, . . . Glasgow had been general manager of the Jay Bee Manufacturing Company, but when he sold his stock, he was succeeded by A. M. Sorenson as manager. Ther
9、e soon developed considerable friction between Sorenson and complainants Akers and Whitsitt. The Jay Bee Manufacturing Company owed large sums to the Tyler State Bank & Trust Co.; and the banks officers, fearing the company might fail under Sorensons management, began talking to Akers and Whitsitt a
10、bout the companys financial difficulties. One of the banks vice-presidents, J. Harold Stringer, made a trip to Franklin to see Mrs. Sedberry about the companys indebtedness to the bank. He told her that they could not get along with Sorenson and did not agree with the way he was managing the company
11、s affairs. Mrs. Sedberry asked Stringer as soon as he got back to Tyler to see Akers and Whitsitt and discuss with them plans for the refinancing and the operation of the company; and thereafter the banks officers had a number of conferences with Akers and Whitsitt about these matters. While these m
12、atters were pending, Akers and Whitsitt flew to Nashville and went to Franklin to talk with Mrs. Sedberry about them. They had a conference with her at her office on Friday, September 29, 1950, lasting from 9:30 a. m. until 4:30 p. m. As they had come unannounced, and unknown to Sorenson, they felt
13、Mrs. Sedberry might mistrust them; and at the outset, to show their good faith, they offered to resign, but she did not accept their offer. Instead, she proceeded with them in discussing the operation and refinancing of the business. Testifying about this conference, Akers said that, at the very beg
14、inning, to show their good faith, he told Mrs. Sedberry that they would offer their resignations on a ninety-day notice, provided they were paid according to the contract for that period; that she pushed the offers aside - would not accept them, but went into a full discussion of the business; that
15、nothing was thereafter said about the offers to resign; and that they spent the whole day discussing the business, Akers making notes of things she instructed him to do when he got back to Texas. Whitsitt testified that at the beginning of the meeting Akers stated the position for both of them, and
16、told Mrs. Sedberry, as evidence of their good faith, we would resign with ninety-days notice if she paid us the monies that she owed us to that date, and on the other hand, if she did not accept that resignation, we would carry forth the rest of our business. He said that she did not accept the offe
17、r, but proceeded with the business, and nothing further was said about resigning. Mrs. Sedberry testified that Akers and Whitsitt came in and offered their resignations; that they said they could not work with Sorenson and did not believe the bank would go along with him; and that they said if it wo
18、uld be of any help to the organization they would be glad to tender their resignation and pay them what was due them. She further said that she did not accept the resignation, that she felt it necessary to contact Mr. Sorenson and give consideration to the resignation offer. But she said nothing to
19、complainants about taking the offer under consideration. On cross-examination she said that in the offer to resign no mention was made of any ninety-day notice. Asked what response she made to the offer she said, I treated it rather casually because I had to give it some thought and had to contact M
20、r. Sorenson. She further said she excused herself from the conference with complainants, went to another room, tried to telephone Sorenson in Tyler, Texas, but was unable to locate him. She then resumed the conference, nothing further was said about the offers to resign, nothing was said by her to i
21、ndicate that she thought the offers were left open or held under consideration by her. But the discussion proceeded as if the offers had not been made. She discussed with complainants future plans for refinancing and operating the business, giving them instructions, and Akers making notes of them. F
22、ollowing the conference, complainants, upon Mrs. Sedberrys request, flew back to Texas to proceed to carry out her instructions. . . . On Monday, October 2, 1950, Mrs. Sedberry sent to complainants similar telegrams, signed by J. B. Sedberry, Inc., by M. B. Sedberry, President, stating that their re
23、signations were accepted, effective immediately. We quote the telegram to Akers, omitting the formal parts: Account present unsettled conditions which you so fully are aware we accept your kind offer of resignation effective immediately. Please discontinue as of today with everyone employed in Sedbe
24、rry, Inc., Engineering Department, discontinuing all expenses in this department writing.While this said she was writing, she did not write. Akers wrote . . . that he was amazed to get her telegram, and called her attention to the fact that no offer to resign by him was open or outstanding when she
25、sent the telegram; that while he had made a conditional offer to resign at their conference on September 29, she had immediately rejected the offer, and had discussed plans for the business and had instructed him and Whitsitt as to things she wanted them to do in the business on their return to Tyle
26、r. This letter further stated that Akers was expecting to be paid according to the terms of his contract until he could find other employment that would pay him as much income as that provided in his contract, and that if he had to accept a position with less income, he would expect to be paid the d
27、ifference, or whatever losses he suffered by her breach of the contract. Whitsitts letter contained a similar statement of his position. . . . As it takes two to make a contract, it takes two to unmake it. It cannot be changed or ended by one alone, but only by mutual assent of both parties. A contr
28、act of employment for a fixed period may be terminated by the employees offer to resign, provided such offer is duly accepted by the employer . . . An employees tender of his resignation, being a mere offer is, of course, not binding until it has been accepted by the employer. Such offer must be acc
29、epted according to its terms and within the time fixed. The matter is governed by the same rules as govern the formation of contracts. . . An offer may be terminated in a number of ways, as, for example, where it is rejected by the offeree, or where it is not accepted by him within the time fixed, o
30、r, if no time is fixed, within a reasonable time. An offer terminated in either of these ways ceases to exist and cannot thereafter be accepted . . . The question what is a reasonable time, where no time is fixed, is a question of fact, depending on the nature of the contract proposed, the usages of
31、 business and other circumstances of the case. Ordinarily, an offer made by one to another in a face to face conversation is deemed to continue only to the close of their conversation, and cannot be accepted thereafter. The rule is illustrated by Restatement of Contracts, section 40, Illustration 2,
32、 as follows: 2. While A and B are engaged in conversation, A makes B an offer to which B then makes no reply, but a few hours later meeting A again, B states that he accepts the offer. There is no contract unless the offer or the surrounding circumstances indicate that the offer is intended to conti
33、nue beyond the immediate conversation. . . The court cites additional authorities for the same proposition.The only offer by Akers and Whitsitt to resign was the offer made by them in their conversation with Mrs. Sedberry. They made that offer at the outset, and on the evidence it seems clear that t
34、hey expected an answer at once. Certainly, there is nothing in the evidence to show that they intended the offer to continue beyond that conversation; and on the above authorities, we think the offer did not continue beyond that meeting. Indeed, it did not last that long, in our opinion, but was ter
35、minated by Mrs. Sedberrys rejection of it very early in that meeting. While she did not expressly reject it, and while she may have intended, as she says, to take the offer under consideration, she did not disclose such an intent to complainants; but, by her conduct, led them to believe she rejected
36、 the offer, brushed it aside, and proceeded with the discussion as if it had not been made. An offer is rejected when the offeror is justified in inferring from the words or conduct of the offeree that the offeree intends not to accept the offer or to take it under further advisement Rest. Contracts
37、 sec. 36. 1 Williston on Contracts, section 51.So, we agree with the Trial Judge that when defendants sent the telegrams, undertaking to accept offers of complainants to resign, there was no such offer in existence; and that this attempt of defendants to terminate their contract was unlawful and constituted a breach for which they are liable to complainants. Bottom of Form