Issues With Contracts and Allegations

Contractual Factors for Verbal Promises In the case pertaining to the employee of the firm Addum, Upp & Paymee, it does not appear that Maurice legally enforce the promise of his superior. In ascertaining whether or not it is possible for him to do so, it is vital to denote the express language of the promise that Maurice's boss made to him.

Specifically, Maurice's superior told him, "If you stay with us, I promise that next year you will receive a promotion with a 50% raise, and a 5-year contract." The language of this statement is so important to its legality because the very definition of the term contract is a legally enforceable exchange of a promise for an act.

By this definition, it would appear that Maurice's boss had issued what would have amounted to a verbal contract, since he issued a promise for the act of giving Maurice a raise and a five-year contract. In fact, it largely appears as though the Maurice's superior had issued a unilateral contract verbally. Another point that Maurice could use to his favor is the fact that there are some contracts that do not have to be in writing.

The only point of relevance regarding this issue is that contracts that are not performable within a year's time must be in writing. Depending on what specific month and day of the year that Maurice's boss issued this promise, is the facet of contract law could help or hinder either party.

It the promise was made so that there was a new calendar year prior to the point when nine months later Maurice's position was downsized and he lost his job, then the promise would not have to be in writing and Maurice still might have a means of legal redress. If the opposite scenario occurred, then Maurice would definitely not be able to legally enforce this promise.

Still, the main reason that Maurice would likely not be able to legally enforce the promise of his superior pertains to the notion of discharge by impossibility of performance. It is quite possible that were Maurice to pursue litigation against his former company and his former superior, that both of those entities could maintain that there were circumstances beyond their control that prevented them from fulfilling the contract.

In fact, they could claim that whatever financial woes that were responsible for the effort to downsize and which eventually claimed Maurice's job was inevitable, and prevented them from fulfilling the verbal unilateral contract. It seems as though such a defense could work for Maurice's former company fairly easily, since all they would have to prove was that there were unforeseeable circumstances that made the fulfillment of the contract extremely expensive to perform.

Similarly, they could also prove that there were circumstances that made it physically impossible to give Maurice the raise and contract extension. Finally, Maurice's company could also dispute the fact that Maurice's boss's promise was a contract. There is no mention of Maurice's response to that.