Malever v. Kay Jewelry Co.
R. Malever v. Kay Jewelry Company.
Opinion of the Court
Stacy, C. J.
Tbe question for decision is whether tbe agreement to give tbe plaintiff “a regular permanent job” in tbe defendant’s new store means any more tban an indefinite general hiring terminable in good faith at tbe will of either party. 35 Am. Jur., 460 ; 39 C. J., 41.
While it is suggested in plaintiff’s testimony tbat tbe inducement to give up bis job in Fayetteville was sufficient consideration to support tbe agreement for permanent employment, still tbe agreement itself is for no definite time, and there is no business usage or other circumstance appearing on tbe record which would tend to give it any fixed duration. Anno. 35 A. L. R., 1432; 62 A. L. R., 234. Conversely, it is suggested tbe moving cause of plaintiff’s acceptance was bis desire to be in Charlotte with bis family, which more tban outweighed tbe difference in pay. He was employed until tbe defendant closed bis store. 35 Am. Jur., 461 .
Tbe case of Jones v. Light Co., 206 N. C., 862 , 175 S. E., 167 , cited and relied upon by tbe plaintiff, is not in point. There, tbe promise in consideration of exceptional efforts on tbe part of tbe plaintiff, was to give him “permanent employment for tbe term of at least ten years.” Nor are tbe cases of Fisher v. Lumber Co., 183 N. C., 485 , 111 S. E., 857 , Stevens v. R. R., 187 N. C., 528 , 122 S. E., 295 , and Dotson v. Guano Co., 207 N. C., 635 , 178 S. E., 100 , where there were agreements to give employment for life in settlement of personal injury claims, controlling on tbe facts of tbe instant record.
Tbe general rule is, tbat “permanent employment” means steady employment, a steady job, a position of some permanence, as contrasted with a temporary employment or a temporary job. Ordinarily, where there is no additional expression as to duration, a contract for permanent employment implies an indefinite general hiring, terminable at will.
McKelvy v. Oil Co., 52 Okla., 81 , 152 P., 414 . Here, tbe plaintiff shows a promise of permanent employment, simpliciter, and no more. Anno., 135 A. L. R., 646.
We find nothing on tbe record to take tbe case out of tbe general rule.
Affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 10 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(holding that a “promise of permanent employment simpliciter” implies “an indefinite general hir ing, terminable at -will.”)
-
(employee moved to Charlotte from Fayetteville on promise of permanent employment; no permanent obligation to employ)
-
(“permanent employment” means a steady rather than temporary job, but absent additional expression as to duration such job remains terminable at will)
-
(jewelry store salesman alleged wrongful discharge after employer induced salesman to leave former job with promises of permanent employment)
-
(“business usage or other circumstances appearing in the record” may be relevant considerations in giving duration to an employment contract which has no definite time stated)
-
("permanent employment” terminable at will)
Cited by 29 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.