Case 14-2 Andrus v. State Department of Transportation

Karla Velazquez de Leon

Brittany Sheppard

Taylor Schramo

George Peniche

Justin Ditolla

Sean Aguilar

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

Facts:

-Andrus applied for position as building inspector and Hill told him he had the job

-On same day city checked employment references which were unsatisfactory so withdrew job offer

-Andrus sued city and the DOT for wrongful discharge and arguing that phone call was an employment contract

Issue:

-Whether the conversation they had on the phone constituted a valid contract

Rationale:

-Restatement of Contracts 33 says that if terms of a bargain are left open or vague then it should not be interpreted as an offer or acceptance.

-Hill’s call did not state anything about a starting date, salary, or benefits (no job details)

-Also, the call was supposed to be followed by a written offer for actual acceptance

Conclusion:

-A valid contract must state reasonably certain terms, since Hill’s call was very vague with no specified requirements the call was not a contract and therefore there was no breach of contract.

Statement of Agreement

The Restatement of Contracts clearly says that if there are terms that are left open or uncertain then it is not really an offer or acceptance. Hill’s call to Andrus was extremely vague, telling him only that he was their number one choice and would get the job. It did not however, include any of the details of the job offer. Since the terms of the job offer are so unclear, it is not an actual contract, therefore there was no breach of contract.

Our personal opinions are in line with the law, we feel that their conversation did not constitute a valid contract, the terms were not discussed.