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: Robert O who wrote (52206)	4/28/2001 1:16:07 PM
From: M. Charles Swope	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 77400

It is generally true that most offer letters do not result in an enforceable contract and that the doctrine of promissory estoppel does not apply to rescinded offers. See, e.g., Clark v. Collins Bus Corp. (Ohio App., 2000) 736 N.E.2d 970 ("prospective employee could not invoke promissory estoppel claim as an exception to the employment at-will-doctrine"), or Bonczek v. Carter Wallace, Inc. (NJ Super. 1997) 701 A.2d 742 ("offering applicant employment which led applicant to leave former job did not give rise to cause of action for promissory estoppel after employer rescinded offer"). However, it is possible to create an enforceable contract of employment requiring payment of damages if it is withdrawn. One case where this occurred is Diston v. EnviroPak Medical Products, Inc. (Utah App.,1995) 893 P.2d 1071. The contract in this case was an oral agreement BTW. The difference seems to depend on the definiteness of the terms. E,g., for a contract to be created the duration of the employment must be definite; the contract must be for say, three years not just left open. This seems sensible as most employment is at will and the employer would be able to fire the new employee without cause on the first day of employment. Still, I think CSCO is wise to extend severance benefits in the rescinded offer cases even if it doesn't have to (It probably isn't required to do so for employees either). It is the decent thing to do and the company may not want to alienate good people whom it may run into again in some capacity. MCS