Feinberg v. Pfeiffer Co.

Download as txt, pdf, or txt
Download as txt, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 1

Case: Feinberg v. Pfeiffer Co.

Parties: Plaintiff - Feinberg (former employee of defendant)


Defendant - Pfeiffer Co.

Procedural History: Trial Court (no jury) issued judgment for plaintiff for
$5,100 (amount due as of the date of the trial, with interest). Defendant
appealed.

Facts: Plaintiff had worked at defendant corporation for 39 years (since 1910,
she was 17). In 1937, due to plaintiff's loyalty, ability and skill in her years
working there, the defendant decided to not only increase her current salary, but
to pay upon retirement $200 for life. They wanted her to work as long as she
could, but she could leave at any time and receive this pension. She continued to
work until 6/30/1949, when she retired. Defendant then began paying her the
promised $200 per month. Shortly after Mr. Lippman died (who was the President of
the company that had promised the plaintiff her pension), it was decided that
since there was no contract to obligate them to pay this pension, and that it was
merely a gratuity because there was no consideration, so they did not need to pay
her this sum. At the time the payments were discontinued, the plaintiff was 63
years old, and also ill.
Pension is not protected by law at this point in time.

Arg 1: Plaintiff argues that the required consideration was established in that
she worked from 1947 to 1949. However, this argument is not supported because she
did not need to continue working to enable her to receive the pension, per the
agreement. There was not mutuality of obligation here, so no consideration (she
could leave at any time and the pension would still be paid).

Arg 2: Plaintiff argues that her change of position (her retirement), and that she
did not seek other gainful employment , was made in reliance of the defendant's
promise to pay $200 per month for life.

Issue: Did the plaintiff act in reliance to them defendant's promise, that would
estop the defendant, and therefore create an enforceable contract under the
doctrine of promissory estoppel?

Holding/Judgment: Judgment affirmed for plaintiff. There was sufficient


consideration (based on promissory estoppel) in that plaintiff relied on the
payments and so retired, and did not seek other gainful employment.

Reasoning: The plaintiff was 57 years old when she retired. It would have been
difficult for her to obtain comparable employment elsewhere, so she would probably
have stayed at her employment if she did not rely on a pension. Furthermore, she
was 63 years old when the payments stopped. She was ill as well, and it is common
knowledge that a woman of that age is very unlikely to find satisfactory
employment. Her decision to retire and subsequently not seek other employment was
in reliance with the promise made.

Court sympathetic to plaintiff. Court will do what they want to do as justice


requires.

You might also like