*2 POPE, Bеfore HEALY and Circuit HARRISON, Judges, Judge. District HARRISON, Judge. District appeal This judgment is an from a appellee in favor of for the breach $2530.25 involving employment contract of an law.1 appellant was The facts disclose Antioch, mill at pulp newa сonstructing three about California, in need and was experienced pulp mill workers. hundred seek- paper advertised in southern trade applicants. ing Tuscaloosa, Ala- Appellee resided who ap- bama, answered thе advertisement had plied that he jobs stating one of years experience pulp mill twenty in “Kraft recovery work”; had that he served nine plant foreman and tour foreman for stated married He further he was family three consisted a wifе and daughters. September 1, provid- appellant
On
appellee
regular application for
ed
with a
same
fill out
form to
and at
him that he
be reason-
time advised
could
posi-
ably
ihere would be some
assured that
apрellee filled
tion available to him. After
application
form
out
on October
Lindlcy, plant manager
he called Mr.
him,
appellant,
at the
of the
who
time told
appellee:
in the
“He tell me
words of
they
position
if I wanted a
out there that
place
plants
in one of
would
me
they
until such time as
could use me in
per-
new mill.
him
I asked
be a
job,
manent
he told
me that I could de-
pend
permanent j
on it to he a
I told him
ob.
bring my family
in that
case would
prepared tо
would come
make California
*
**
my home
now on.
told Mr.
report
Lindley
on the
that would
work
November,
15th of
1948.”
Tompkins,
U.S.
58 S.Ct.
82 R.Ed. 1188.
1. Erie
Co. v.
Railroad
Funding
wrote
day
following
On
“Subject:
Possi-
heading:'
Seifert
appellee
Depart-
Recovery
Bros., Inc.,
Cal.App.
Employment
Arnold
P.
bility of
*3
telephone
part
1059,
the
confirming
employment
2d
ment”,
the contract of
must
by appellee.
be permanent,
be considered to
in ac
testified
and
conversation
Millsap case, supra,
cordance with the
two
prepared to move
Thereupon appellee
years must
be considered
a reasonable
temporary job, sold
quit a
He
California.
Findings
period of time.” But
in its
sacrifice, loaded
at
goods
a
household
his
8,
Fact, No.
the court found: “That
it is
proceeded
and
family
an automobile
permanent employ
a
true that
contract for
California.
move to
in the State of California is a
ment
con
reported
15, 1948, appellee
Nоvember
On
employment
to retain in
for a
tract
reason
all
He was told
promised.
work
for
time,
period of
and that a
able
reasonable
he could
filled but
jobs
been
had
salaried
period
years.”
Findings
of time is two
The
wanted,
job hе
any pick have the
prevail.2
of Fact must
“re-
take a
appellee
whereupon
elected to
was
covery operation job”. Appellee
Fund-
In the
case of
re-
mill
a
paper
temporarily in a
plаced
407,
772,
P.2d
ing
135
completion of
pay
the
until
duced rate
permanent
court found a
for
the
contract
later, on
nine months
pulp
About
mill.
the
employment
a
reason-
meant
contract for a
mill, he was
pulp
completion
the
the
able time and that
reasonable
a
job”.
“recovery operation
placed in a
not
partic-
the
view of
the circumstances of
damages
the
appellee seeks
Hence
trial,
years. The re-
ular case on
was two
him.
employ
so to
contract
of the
breach
viewing court did
disturb
trial
not
the.
appellee
found that
court
trial the
At the
respect.
findings
court’s
this
damaged
$2523.25.
in the sum
been
had
And so
the case at bar under said
records
exаmined the
haveWe
Findings
No.
court found a reason-
find-
court’s
conclusion
to the
come
period
able
of time
two
If the
was
ap-
supported by the evidence
are
ings
court,
facts warranted it the
in its discre-
respect is with-
in this
contention
pellant’s
tion, could
greater
have found a
or lesser
merit.
out
period of time.
the fact
on
places
stress
Appellant
great
is unen-
employment agreement
A
that
permanent
contract for
employ
of Frauds. Wе
the Statute
under
forceable
only
ment is
contract
an indefinite
reasoning in
based its
think
period of time and
terminable at
assumption.
It
respect upon
false
this
party,
upon
of either
unless it is based
some
an
that
court found
the trial
аrgues that
consideration other than the services to be
employment meant
permanent
agreement of
rendered.3
therefore,
if the
years,
employment for two
In this case the evidence' demonstrates
years
two
was а contract
contract
said
appellee
exception.
that
comes within the
provisions
unenforceable
it was
While the
was not
California, §
Civil
of the
Code
sufficiently specific
made
to be enforceable
of Cali-
Procedure
of Civil
Code
until
the conversation of November
argu-
fallacy
fornia,
1973. The
§
only
that
specific
conversation
made
per-
that
appellant assumes
is that
supplemented
telephone
agreement
equivalent of
employment is the
manent
of October
1948.4
years’ contract.
two
suggested
that what
said in
was
in its order
v.
Foundry,
the court
Thacker American
Cal.App.
that
true
It is
authority
322, required
2d
“Under
177 P.2d
holding
that
states:
judgment
Ltd.,
N.J.Eq. 43,
Black,
Prosser,
4.
E.
Lawrence
v. E.
Wan
Koоn
Kam
2.
Contracts,
on
A.
Williston
Vol.
F.2d 558.
p.
49.
Sec.
Underwriters,
Speegle
Fire
Board of
3.
34, 172
Cal.2d
ap-
sufficient evidence that
was not
there
Finding no substantial
error
rec-
manager
plant
pellee told the
he had
judgment
ord
is affirmed.
quit
not
job which he would
unlеss of-
employment,
permanent
hence
fered
POPE,
spe-
Circuit
(concurring
proof
of consideration
lack-
cially) .
facts
ing.
giving
show that
agreement
I am in
with the conclusion
up
job
was not
detriment
of the
foregoing opinion,
reaсhed in the
with
Appellee moved
and his
himself
suffered.
said
most
therein.
I think I should
California,
family from Alabama to
judgment
reserve
as to the first reason
*4
at
job,
for nine months
an inferior
worked
by
opinion
non-appli-
the
for
advanced
the
express understanding
pursuant
all
to an
of
of
cation
the Statute
Frauds.
part of
arrange-
he would do so as
that
court,
The trial
following the rule stated
permanent
job.
for
A number of
in
v.
57
Funding
National
holding
em-
the
the
cases
California
Cal.App.2d 772,
407,
135
P.2d
held
awill
con-
may
ployer
not terminate
case,
under
the facts
this particular
of
employment
permanent
for
tract
based
Fibreboard and Townsend entered into a
consideration,
involved det-
upon sufficient
employment wherеby
contract of
the latter
up
giving
other than the
riments suffered
employment
was entitled to
for a reason-
job.
Brown
of another
Thus in
period
time,
able
of
and that under the
606,
Works,
336, 143
168
P.
Electric
Cal.
circumstances,
employment
such
be
must
of
purchase
the
the consideration was
taken
period
years.
to be for a
of two
Thus
Cal.App.
stock;
McDonald, 73
Gregg
in
v.
the district court has held that on the facts
373,
purchase of
748, 239
it was the
P.
particular
of this
case there
awas
contract
business;
Ar-
in
in a
Seifert
share
employment
of
for a reasonable
to-
324,
1059,
Bros.,
Cal.App.
P.2d
31
nold
138
wit,
years.
two
purchase
a used automobile.
it was the
of
sufficiency of
the
may be said of
Whatever
difficulty
I
in reasoning how this
here,
the
up
job
we think
giving
the
of a
can
employment
fact a contract
be
for
supplied
suffered
sufficient
detriments
other
period
yet
years
for
of two
not come
satisfy the rule mentioned.
consideration to
provisions
within the
the California
advantage to
it
an
At
time was
the same
Statute of Frauds relating to contracts not
experienced
employer
work-
the
to have an
performed
year.
appre-
within
its
pool
opening
the
man in its labor
for
hend that
in somе states
contract
for
new mill.
permanent employment,
supported
where
consideration,
by
is construed to be
em-
an
counsel for
over
Able
ployment for life.
In such
the
cases
Stat-
“perman
that an oral contract fоr
looked
prevent
ute
Frauds docs not
enforce-
employment”
other
dur
ent
or of
indefinite
by
very
ment because
terms
the Statute of
does not come within
ation
upon
agreement
it is to end
the death of
majority
rule
Frauds.5 That
is
emрloyee,
happen
may
which
within
35
1432 at
see
A.L.R.
the United States
year.
See Williston on Contracts §
page 688
page
135
646 at
1440 and
A.L.R.
495, note 8.
In other slates a contract for
Lead
and cases cited
these annotations.
permanent еmployment is held to be one
authority
entirely
in ac
ing California
merely
period
for
indefinite
an
of time and
support
majority
cord with and lends
to this
But,
party.
terminable at the
of either
any event,
In
detriment suf
le.6
ru
here,
agreed
are
Cali-
plaintiff is
as we
estop
sufficient to
de
fered
import
fornia rule such
not the
and effect
asserting
fendant
Statute
from
particular
us.
agreement
Frauds.7
now before
184,
299;
Bobo,
105 P.2d
Kelly-Springfield
Cal.2d
Sim
16
Tire Co. v.
Technology,
California
of
521,
Institute
Cir., 1925,
mons v.