Monday, March 5, 2007
As Frank Snyder put it in the early days of this Blog:
[On] December 2, 1980, the Missouri Court of Appeals decided Katz v. Danny Dare, Inc., 610 S.W.2d 121 (Mo. Ct. App.1980), a popular casebook follow-up to Feinberg v. Pfeiffer Co. in the promissory estoppel part of the course. In the case, the president of the company wanted to get his brother-in-law to resign instead of having to fire him (thus ticking off his sister) so he promised him a pension. After the man retired, the company reneged on the promise, claiming that there was no consideration for the promise because the employee would have been fired anyway. The court's holding -- that there was no consideration but that there was reliance -- is just off base enough to make for great class discussion.
And also off-base enough to inspire a Limerick:
Katz v. Danny Dare
Shopmaker could have fired Katz.
Instead, they held family chats.
Now a pension is due,
Though Katz' work days aren't through.
Estoppel here seems a bit bats.