Employment Contract and Acceptance

Sean Brosnan was a high school senior. He filled out his applications for college in September of 2015, including an application for early decision to Queens University. In December Brosnan received a thick packet from Queens, which included a glossy brochure entitled, "Welcome to Queens." The first page of the brochure said, "Welcome to Queens!! We are delighted to have you as a member of the university community! We will be holding a place for you in the class of 2020 if you submit a $200 deposit by January 20.

We would remind you that by your application for early decision, you indicated your commitment that if you were accepted to Queens, you would withdraw any applications that you have filed to other colleges and universities." The brochure included an "Acceptance Coupon" providing that the signer was making a "definite commitment to attend Queens University during the coming academic year, to withdraw applications from any other colleges and universities, and to enclose a check for $200." Brosnan signed the form and sent it with a $200 check to the Queens Admission Office.

He then withdrew his applications from the six other universities to which he had applied. A few days later he got a phone call from the Director of Admissions at Queens saying, "I'm sorry, we did not intend to give you the impression that you had been accepted. Your mailing should have been a deferral letter and should not have included the acceptance brochure. In any case, you had no business sending in a check -- we didn't even send you a letter of acceptance.

We are returning your check." Please discuss the questions below using common law contract principles. Has Queens University entered into a contract with Sean Brosnan? Give the legal arguments that can be made on each side of the issue. While it was not technically an explicit written contract (or an acceptance letter per se), the brochures and other information sent to Sean absolutely gave the indication that an offer an acceptance was being made to him.

This is true for several reasons: • The information packet indicated that he was accepted even if an "acceptance letter" to that effect was not technically sent out. • The information packet indicated that all he had to do to cinch up his spot was to send a $200 deposit, which he did. The packet indicated explicitly that doing so was considered a "definite commitment" to attending the school. He was, in essence, offered a contract from the school.

He was to presumably pay tuition upon his acceptance and he would receive consideration (his education and other related services) in return. The tendering of the $200 check was his acceptance of that offer. • The packet explicitly told him to renege on trying to get into the other schools. In effect, he was relying on the information in the packet and this turned out to be to his detriment when the school "changed its mind" and told him he had not gotten into school.

While some might argue that he should not have relied on the packet without also getting an acceptance letter, the packet made it clear that he was to do so and that is what he did. As such, the school would owe him some sort of damages (if not admittance to the school) due to the mishap. The school made a mistake...not Mr. Brosnan. While the question asks the author to look at things from the perspective of the school and Mr. Brosnan, whoever sent that packet to Mr.

Brosnan, given his non-acceptance status, clearly erred. If that is a general packet sent to non-accepted people (unlikely), the materials need to be drastically changed because they do create a contract if the deposit is rendered (and it was in this case). Beyond that, the school's attempt to wriggle out of that created contract is itself despicable and should be actionable given that they ignored the contract that they clearly made. Lack of good faith does not even begin to describe it.

They were sloppy and then they were flippant when they figured out their error. Suppose that Queens discovered its error and contacted Brosnan prior to receiving Brosnan's acceptance coupon. Would this change your analysis? If so, how and why? It would change the analysis...but only because the aforementioned contract mentioned above would be null and void since the offer was yanked before acceptance was rendered by Mr. Brosnan in the form of a check.

Even with that, the school should never, ever send out that packet to someone that is not officially accepted. At the very least, any phrases and portions of that packet that formalize any sort of contract should be removed (e.g. the request for the deposit check to "commit," the direction to rescind applications to other schools, etc.). Question Two Read the case of Woolley v. Hoffman-Laroche, Inc. starting on page 340 of the Law, Sales and Marketing text and discuss the following: link below..

"If the employer had required employees to sign a document indicating that they had read and understood the requirements of the employment manual, would that change the analysis in the case? Explain your reasoning." In the case of Woolley, it is clear that there was not an employment contract but the employment handbook indicated other things. Since there was no employment contract in writing to contradict what was in the handbook, the handbook became the document of record.

As noted by the deciders of the case, all the employer had to do was update their book accordingly or at least have a clause that said that any contract in place outside of the handbook overrides what is in the handbook. Since the handbook was the only thing to go off of, that is what the case was decided on. If there is a policy in writing, it has to be followed unless there is a legal and binding reason why it can and should not be.

To answer the question posed at the top of this page, it would not have changed the decision. In this case, there was no employment contract and the employee who was fired on an at-will basis demanded justice since he was not terminated in accordance with the handbook. What would have been a difference-maker for the employer is if the handbook matched their actual practice and/or if there was an employment contract that superseded the handbook...but neither was the case.

Question Three On page 345 of the Law, Sales and Marketing text review exercise 1 a and 1b, discuss and address the questions raised and explain your conclusions. • Mr. and Mrs. Smith, an elderly couple, had no relatives. When Mrs. Smith became ill, the Smiths asked a friend, Henrietta, to help with various housekeeping chores, including cleaning and cooking. Although the Smiths never promised to pay her, Henrietta performed the chores for eighteen months. Henrietta now claims that she is entitled to the reasonable value of the services performed.

Is she correct? Explain. No. If there was.