Who won this case? Was e-mail agreement a contract?
Filed under: Communication, In this week's e-newsletter, Latest News & Views, Security and law, Uncategorized
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.
Comments
3 Comments on Who won this case? Was e-mail agreement a contract?
-
Rajiv on
Mon, 2nd Feb 2009 4:40 pm
-
News Today on
Sun, 15th Feb 2009 5:34 am
-
James Georges on
Sun, 15th Feb 2009 10:27 pm
As a Newbie, I am always searching online for articles that can help me. Thank you
One of my best articles i have read at last days. Thanks dude.
Generally I do not post on blogs, but I would like to say that this post really forced me to do so! Good post.
