Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
36. Is the bakery likely to prevail in a lawsuit against the chef for breach of contract?
A bakery offered a chef a permanent full-time job as a pastry chef at a salary of $3,000 per month. The chef agreed to take the position and to begin work in two weeks. In her employment application, the chef had indicated that she was seeking a permanent job. One week after the chef was hired by the bakery, a hotel offered the chef a position as a restaurant manager at a salary of $3,500 a month. The chef accepted and promptly notified the bakery that she would not report for work at the bakery.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
A is correct. The issue here is the interpretation of the term «permanent employment» in the bakery-chef contract. It is well established that «permanent employment» means «employment-at-will.» In an employment-at-will relationship, either party can terminate the agreement at any time, without the termination being considered a breach (unless the termination were to violate an important public policy — which is not the case here). Accordingly, the chef is not liable for breach of contract.
B is incorrect. This answer reaches the correct answer with the wrong reasoning. The bakery will not prevail against the chef, but not because of the nature of the position the chef took with the hotel. The reason the chef is not following through with the bakery position is irrelevant. The comparability issue DOES arise in cases in which an employee who has been terminated is offered another job; in such cases the employee's claim for breach would be reduced by wages which could have been earned at jobs which are not different and inferior. However, that is not the case here. Because the relationship between the bakery and the chef was employment-at-will, the bakery will lose.
C is incorrect. This answer choice misses the significance of the word «permanent» in the context of employment agreements, such as in this case. This designation triggers an employment-at-will relationship, regardless of any courtesy that may be expected of the chef to work at the bakery for a reasonable amount of time. The chef may leave at any point for any reason (or not even begin the position at all).
D is incorrect. This answer invokes the doctrine of «right of first refusal.» While some contracts do create rights of first refusal, such rights must be created by express agreement, not by implication. In the context of employment agreements, it is well established that «permanent employment» means «employment-at-will,» as explained above.