FACULTYTALK Archives

June 2006

FACULTYTALK@LISTSERV.MIAMIOH.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
"Hartman, Laura" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk
Date:
Fri, 16 Jun 2006 14:24:10 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (65 lines)
Besides, if the new hire relied on what I would also consider quite a
hefty sum (as opposed to "immaterial"), and that reliance was
reasonable, wouldn't there be a claim for promissory estoppel?

 
Laura P. Hartman
Associate Vice President, Academic Affairs
Professor of Business Ethics
DePaul University
1 E. Jackson, Ste. 7000
Chicago, IL 60604
o: 312-362-6569, c: 312-493-9929
 
EARLY SUMMER '06: Please note, I am actually going to try to take an
vacation for one week from June 17 - June 25.  If you must contact me
during that time, either write "emergency" in the subject line or dial
my cell number (below), though that is not going to be very reliable
where I am headed.  In case of true emergency, please contact Dianne at
312-362-8364.
 
 

>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk
>>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Michael O'Hara
>>Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 2:20 PM
>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>Subject: Re: contracts question
>>
>>      From one perspective, if 40% is not material, then I would be
>>surprised; although I can see where 29% looks less material than 40%.
>>
>>      If the "agent" of the corporation was authorized to extend an
offer
>>at $0.07 and the "agent" exceeded that authorization and extended an
offer
>>at $0.05, then the question is who suffers the loss of the $0.02.  I
>>suspect the "agent" suffers the loss rather than either the
corporation or
>>the new hire.  However, the corporation might suffer the cash flow
>>obligation as a surety of the "agent" with respect to the suing new
hire.
>>
>>      The $0.02 easily might not be material if the percentage
calculation
>>uses the entire new hire package as the denominator, but I suspect a
>>several segment such as a hiring bonus would be a more likely
denominator.
>>
>>Michael
>>
>>Professor Michael J. O'Hara, J.D., Ph.D.
>>Finance, Banking, & Law Department        Editor, Journal of Legal
>>Economics
>>College of Business Administration        (402) 554 - 2014 voice fax
(402)
>>554 - 3825
>>Roskens Hall 502                    www.AAEFE.org
>>University of Nebraska at Omaha
www.JournalOfLegalEconomics.com
>>Omaha  NE  68182
>>[log in to unmask]
>>(402) 554 - 2823 voice  fax (402) 554 - 2680
>>http://cba.unomaha.edu/faculty/mohara/web/ohara.htm

ATOM RSS1 RSS2