DeMasse v.

ITT Corporation
Roger DeMasse and five others were employees at-will at ITT Corporation
ITT issued an employee handbook. The first four editions of the handbook stated that within
each job classification, any layoffs would be made in reverse order of seniority. The fifth
handbook made two important changes: “ITT reserves the right to amend, modify, or cancel
this handbook,

Issue: Did ITT have the right unilaterally to change the layoff policy?

Decision: No, ITT did not have the right unilaterally to change the layoff policy because a valid
implied contract prevented the company from doing so.
The employees accepted that offer by working, and from that time on, an implied contract
governed the employment relationship. ITT had no right to change the layoff policy unilaterally.

Baer v. Chase
David Chase was became interested in a new program, set in New Jersey,
about a “mob boss in therapy. Robert Baer was a prosecutor in New
Jersey submitted a Rockford Files script to Chase, who agreed to meet
with Baer.
When The play became a hit television show, Baer sued Chase. He alleged that on three separate
occasions, Chase had agreed that if the program succeeded, Chase would “take care of” Baer

Issue: Was Chase’s promise definite enough to be enforced?

Decision: No, the promise was too indefinite to be enforced.

Reasoning: To create a binding agreement, the offer and acceptance must be definite enough that
a court can tell what the parties were obligated to do. The parties need to agree on all of the
essential terms; if they do not, there is no enforceable contract.

One of the essential terms is price. The agreement must either specify the compensation to be
paid or describe a method by which the parties can calculate it. The duration of the contract is
also basic: How long do the mutual obligations last?

Nadel v. Tom Cat Bakery

A Tom Cat Bakery delivery van struck Elizabeth Nadel as she crossed a street. Having suffered
significant injuries, Nadel filed suit. Before the trial began, the attorney representing the
bakery’s owner offered a $100,000 settlement, which Nadel refused.
Later that day, the jury sent a note to the judge. The bakery owner told her lawyer that if the
note indicated the jury had reached a verdict, that he should revoke the settlement offer.
Verdict awarded Nadel—nothing. She appealed, claiming that a $100,000 settlement had been
reached.

Issue: Did Nadel’s lawyer accept the settlement offer in time?

Decision: No, the bakery owner’s lawyer revoked the offer before acceptance.

Analyzing the timeline, the bakery owner’s attorney indicated that if a verdict had been
returned, he revoked the offer. This notice was given before the attempted acceptance. And so,
since a verdict had in fact been returned, the offer was no longer open.