Randall Carter sued his former employer, Arrowhead Lock & Safe, Inc. (“Arrowhead”), and two of its corporate officers, Joseph Hubbard and Fran Henderson. Carter alleged that the defendants wrongfully terminated his employment and thereafter libeled him in a letter Arrowhead allegedly sent to individuals outside of the Arrowhead corporate structure. In Case No. A96A1640 Carter appeаls the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendants on his libel claim, and in Case No. A96A1641 the defendants appeal the trial court’s denial of their motion for summary judgment on Carter’s wrongful termination claim. For the following reasons, we affirm the trial court’s ruling on Carter’s libel claim and reverse the trial court’s ruling on Carter’s wrongful termination clаim.
“[Sjummary judgment is appropriate when the court, viewing all the facts and reasonable inferences from those facts in a light most favorable to the non-moving рarty, concludes that the evidence does not create a triable issue as to each essential element of the case.”
Lau’s Corp. v. Haskins,
On October 17, 1990, Carter submitted a resignation letter to Arrowhead which provided that he would resign “effective 10/26/90.” According to Arrowhead, it accepted Carter’s resignation, rehired *376 him as a salesman at the end of October, and paid him a base salary with commissions. Arrowhead presented evidence that it continued to employ Carter until the first week of March 1991, when he left following a dispute with Henderson. Henderson stated that Carter “abandoned his job” and she had the locks changed aftеr the argument. Carter alleges that Arrowhead never accepted his resignation, but merely reduced his compensation and subsequently terminated him on March 8, 1991.
Shоrtly after Carter left Arrowhead, Hubbard received information that Carter was attempting “to trade [keying records of Arrowhead clients] in exchange for a job [with а competitor].” In response, Arrowhead sent Carter a letter addressing his reported unauthorized use of the keying records. This letter, which formed the basis of Carter’s libel claim, indicated that it was carbon copied to Chuck Williams and Brook Blake, whom Carter characterizes as “two individuals who are involved with the locksmith industry but whо were not a part of [Arrowhead’s] corporation.” Although Hubbard acknowledged that he wrote in the letter that he would “c.c.” Williams and Blake, he testified that hе actually sent it only to Carter and Henderson. In support of this testimony, Arrowhead presented the affidavits of both Williams and Blake, in which they state that “[a]t no time have I ever received a letter or other written correspondence from any of the defendants regarding Randall Carter. Nor have I ever heard any of thе defendants make or cause to be made any oral derogatory or uncomplimentary statements, remarks or comments about Randall Carter.”
Case No. A96A1640
1. Carter contends the trial court erred in finding that there was no evidence showing the letter was published to Williams and Blake. 1 We disagree.
It is not disputed that publication of the allegedly libelоus letter is essential to Carter’s claim.
Sigmon v. Womack,
In this case, even if we assume the evidence authorized a finding that any of the defendants sent the letter to Williams or Blake, the affidavits and deposition testimony presented by the defendants in support of their motion clearly show that neither of those two individuals reсeived or read the letter. The defendants accordingly have met their burden of showing by the record that the letter was not published to a third party. See id. Because Carter failed to present any evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact regarding publication, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to the defendants on this claim.
Case No. A96A1641
2. The defendants contend that even if Carter did not resign in October 1990, his employment contract was only for a term of one year beginning January 19, 1990, and that it had expired by the time Carter left Arrowhead in March 1991. We agree.
The employment agreement in this case did not comply with the statute of frauds. OCGA § 13-5-30 (5). “The Statutе of Frauds requires that an agreement not to be performed within a year of its making must be in writing and signed by the party to be charged with the obligation. The writing or memorandum must be сomplete in itself, with nothing left in parol. It must show all the terms of the contract, the parties, and their assent thereto. . . . The test of an enforceable contrаct is whether it is expressed in language sufficiently plain and explicit to convey what the parties agreed upon.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.)
Toncee, Inc. v. Thomas,
In this case, even if we assume that there is sufficient evidence to show that the term of Carter’s employment contract is five years, *378 the evidence is still insufficient to establish Carter’s compensation beyond the first year. As stated above, the memorandum from Henderson discussed Carter’s compensation package for only the “first year” of his emplоyment. Nothing in the memorandum provides any basis for determining Carter’s compensation beyond that time. Because the contract in this case failed to specifically provide for Carter’s compensation beyond his first year of employment, the contract was unenforceable beyond that time. See Sawyer, supra. Any verbal agreements between the parties that purported to establish. Carter’s compensation for the five-year term would likewise be unenforceable under the statute of frauds. See Toncee, Inc., supra; Sawyer, supra.
Accordingly, any employment contract between the parties was unenforceable beyond January 15, 1991, which was one year after Carter began working for Arrowhead. After such time, Carter was without an enforceable contract and under Georgia law considered an employеe who could be terminated at will.
Wheeling v. Ring Radio Co.,
Judgment аffirmed in Case No. A96A1640. Judgment reversed in Case No. A96A1641.
Notes
Although the letter also indicated that copies were sent to two other individuals within the Arrowhead corporate struсture, Carter does not rely on these communications in support of his libel claim. See
Kitchen Hardware, Ltd. v. Kuehne & Nagel, Inc.,