Case 14-2 Andrus v. State, Department of Transportation, and City of Olympia

1. Andrus v. State Department of Transportation and City of Olympia (2005)

F:

• Scott Andrus applied for a position with the city of Olympia
• Tom Hill, and engineering supervisor with the city, called Andrus and told him, “You’re our number one choice, and I’m offering you the job”.
• Andrus responded, “great, and yes”.
• Andrus requested details via facsimile regarding the job and never received them.
• The city checked his references with the Department of Transportation, which proved unsatisfactory and they withdrew the offer.
• Andrus sued for the city breech of contract and the DOT for defamation.
• Trial court granted city’s request to dismiss the claims without trial.
• Andrus only appealed the breech of contract.

I:

• Whether a phone call lacking reasonably certain terms or subsequent written terms constitutes a contract.

R:

• An enforceable contract requires among other things, an offer with reasonably certain terms.
• The telephone “job offer” contained no starting date, salary, or benefit information.
• The “job offer” was to be followed with a written contract and request for acceptance.
• According to Restatement of Contracts § 33 (1979)

C:

• Under the common law, the terms of the offer must be definite and certain, all the material terms must be certain. These terms include the subject matter, quantity, quality, and parties.
• Affirmed in favor of the city.

2. Agree:

We agree with the court’s decision to deny the plaintiff’s appeal, which states that the material terms of the offer were not definite and certain, such as date, salary, benefit information etc. Moreover, the written terms of the telephone “job offer” were never offered or accepted. W

We agree with this decision because the material details of the job offer were never discussed, and the offer is subject to change.

3. Stuart Hill, Chelsea Barclay, Jade Dacay, Michelle McDaniel, Kelsey Chase