Technology’s changing the way companies communicate with employees — but there are some things that are still better discussed face-to-face.

Read the facts of this real-life case and decide: Who won?

The facts:

The case involved an employee working under a contract. Before the contract was up, the employee’s boss e-mailed him to discuss a change in his responsibilities. The employee replied via e-mail, saying he accepted the change. Soon after, though, he sued, claiming he should only be held to the original terms of his contract.

The employer said:

The e-mails sent back and forth should be considered official amendments to the contract, which the employee agreed to.

Who won the case?

Answer: The employer.

Why? The court agreed with the company. As the judge said, “The e-mails from plaintiff constitute ’signed writings’ within the meaning of the statute of frauds, since plaintiff’s name at the end of his e-mail signified his intent to authenticate the contents.”

This case worked out for the benefit of the employer, but it’s also possible for a company to be held to unwanted terms that were discussed over e-mail.

Matters related to contracts should be discussed in person and verified in writing, to avoid any possible confusion about what the “real” terms are.

Cite: Stevens v. Publicis, S.A.

Tags: contracts, e-mail