Caci promissory estoppel

Procedural Posture

Appellant employee sought review of a decision of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which entered judgment in favor of respondent amusement company in an action for damages for breach of a contract.

Overview: caci promissory estoppel

The employee and the company entered into an employment contract for a high wire act. The employee contended that when he went to perform his act, the company repudiated his contract. The employee sought to recover two weeks' plus additional damages. The court found that the instrument purported to have been a contract between the parties contained no covenants that compelled the construction that the employee's family was parties to the contract. The court concluded that where a reading of a simple contract disclosed that it was executed for and on behalf of a principal, or disclosed an intent to bind such principal, or even left the matter one of doubt, parol evidence may be employed to determine whose contract it was. The only ground of demurrer upon which the ruling of the trial court could have been sustained was that of uncertainty. Because that uncertainty might have been removed by parol evidence, it could not have been said that the complaint could not have been amended to show who was the real party to the second part of the contract and therefore, the trial court abused its discretion in refusing the employee leave to amend his complaint.

Outcome

The court reversed the decision of the trial court and remanded the cause.