Feinberg v Pfeiffer Co.

Feinberg v Pfeiffer Co. - P's second contention was that...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Case: Feinberg v. Pfeiffer Co Class Notes Court / Date: Judge: Facts: Issue: Holding: Procedural History: Rule: Rationale: St. Louis Ct of App (1959) Doerner, Commissioner Action on alleged contract by defendant to pay plaintiff a specified monthly amount for life upon her retirement from defendant's employ. The Circuit Court, City of St. Louis, John C. Casey, J., rendered judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appealed. The original claim was on an alleged contract by defendant to pay plaintiff a specified monthly amount for life upon her retirement from defendant's employ. D. stated that the $200 was never a contract only a gift, therefore not providing D. with any form of benefit, This fact as well as the issue that the gift was based on past employment from the P. were the two contentions by the D. for lack of consideration.
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: P's second contention was that her retirement from her lucrative position in defendant's employ in reliance upon defendant's promise to pay her a pension for life constituted sufficient consideration to support agreement to pay pension. 1) Whether there was consideration sufficient to support a contract between P. and D for monthly pension. 2) Whether P.s reliance on the pension in retirement constituted sufficient consideration to support agreement to pay pension. 1) Concerning the issue of past employment, No. There was not sufficient consideration due to a lack of mutuality of obligation. There was no promise of future employment. 2) Concerning reliance on the pension and abandonment of opportunity of future employment, Yes. Affirmed The ct cited Restatement Sec. 75 on consideration...
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online