Houghton v. Kleugel

California Court of Appeal Nov 22, 1922 No. Civ. No. 4243.Published

Before: THE COURT. —

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a telegram exchange between an employer and employee constituted a binding contract, finding that the employer's acceptance of a settlement offer at a financial loss provided sufficient consideration for the employee's promise to refund a portion of his salary.

Issues

Whether the telegrams exchanged between the parties created a binding contract.
Whether there was sufficient legal consideration to support the defendant's promise to pay the plaintiff's assignor $1,500.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The trial court rendered judgment in the plaintiff’s favor upon findings to the effect that the foregoing telegrams between the defendant and plaintiff’s assignor constituted a written contract”

“We are of the opinion that a consideration by the defendant’s definite offer was fully shown and that its acceptance on the part of the plaintiff’s assignor constituted a binding contract”

“The detriment suffered by plaintiff in accepting $5,049 less than the sum he claimed to be due him was sufficient consideration for defendant’s promise to repay him $1,500.”

THE COURT.

This appeal is from a judgment in the plaintiff’s favor in an action to recover the sum of $1,500 upon a written contract alleged to have been made between the defendant and one Shirley Ploughton, by the terms of which the defendant agreed to pay to the latter, said sum. The plaintiff sues upon such assigned contract. The defendant denies the existence of any such contract or obligation. He also pleads that any such • contract or agreement, if shown to exist, was wholly without consideration moving to said defendant. He further pleads the bar of the statute of limitations against the plaintiff’s alleged cause of action. The case was tried upon an agreed statement of facts supplemented by some oral testimony of minor importance.

[715]

The following, briefly summarized, are the undisputed facts of the case.

During the year 1916 Shirley Houghton, who was apparently a consulting engineer in construction work, with his office in San Francisco, California, had been engaged in the preparation of a certain report for the use of the public utilities commission of the city of Denver. The defendant, Kluegel, was also an engineer and was at the time an employee of said Shirley Houghton and his representative in Denver, under a salary, in connection with the preparation of said report and in the adjustment of the compensation to be allowed and provided for in the budget of said commission. Difficulties having arisen before the commission as to the amount of such compensation, Kluegel, on the 29th of December, 1916, sent from Denver to Shirley Houghton in San Francisco the following telegram:

“1916 Dec 29

“Denver Colo

“Shirley Houghton

“Hooker & Lent Bldg., San Francisco, Calif.

“Refer Nyes night letter. Last conference today. Presented statement for 8886 dollars from Sept, first. Deductions made 5049 include Wilhelm, your last two trips, Nyes two bills and practically everything since Oct fifth, making net allowed and for which they will issue warrant 3837 plus fee. Everything done under Nyes direction. Urge you accept this recommendation. Do not believe your presence would alter situation. Will refund my salary in above amounting to 1500. Speer will not include warrant in budget, but will take up matter after Jan. first in the line our talk Marsh. I could attend same after returning New York or Nye. Answer so if you agree present basis I can get warrant this week. Mailing copy report tomorrow.

Houghton v. Kleugel

AI Brief

THE COURT.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

THE COURT.

AI Brief