Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Cisco Systems, Inc. (CSCO) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Adam Nash who wrote (52204)	4/28/2001 11:37:19 AM
From: Robert O	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 77400

Interesting comments and distinction but one fly in the ointment which is the fact that almost every offer letter I have ever seen (and no doubt is industry practice for any company with at least one HR staff person)includes a disclaimer within the 'offer' letter specifically outlining the at-will nature of the position offered should it even be accepted. It's pure sophistry to posit there has been a contract entered into but then is somehow entered out of once past the initial creation of the purported contract, as you contend. There is NEVER a promise of permanent employment, in fact most letters identify up front that there is no quid pro quo. In fact one tactic I see all the time is for salary to be referenced in terms of the pay cycle of the company's payroll not as an annualized figure, thus removing a candidate’s ability to infer (and then imply) that there was an impression of guaranteed employment (even if just for a year). In other words, you work for a time, you get paid for that time, end of story. What do you think the 'damages' would be for an offer letter not honored by the company prior to start date? Under what theory of law would you bring a claim if not estoppel? If you have easy access, lets look at some recent case law and see what happens in the real world... I think we'll find a rescinded 'offer' to a non-contract (employment at will) is not exactly the most sought after case by plaintiff's attorneys ;-) You would have to prove you had other offers you did not take based on (in this example) reliance on CSCO's offer and now you cannot get those other jobs and have been irreversibly harmed. Hmmm, sound like promissory estoppel to me. RO