Seifert v. Arnold Bros.

PULLEN, P. J. Plaintiff entered into a conditional sales contract to buy an automobile from appellant, and in consideration of the purchase thereof by plaintiff, defendant agreed to give plaintiff employment as evidenced by a letter as follows:

“ ... In consideration of your purchasing an Essex Coupe we are offering you employment at the rate of $80 per month. This employment is to be steady as long as your services are satisfactory.

“Tours very truly,

“Arnold Bros., Inc.,

“By H. D. Arnold.”

Plaintiff was given employment for approximately three months in the used car department of defendant and was then discharged. One of the officers of the corporation testified the business had suffered a sales depreciation of ap[326]proximately eighty per cent during the three months’ period that plaintiff was employed by defendant and it became necessary to discharge several employees, including plaintiff. As to whether or not plaintiff did his work satisfactorily, the court found: “Plaintiff properly and carefully performed all of the duties assigned to him, and said services were performed to the entire satisfaction of said defendant.”

Plaintiff brought this action to recover damages for his wrongful discharge, and the court, finding in his favor to the effect that the hiring was for a reasonable time, entered judgment, from which defendant appeals.

The employment of plaintiff wás in consideration of the purchase of an automobile by him from appellant, and the rule is clear that an employment based upon a consideration can be rightfully terminated only under conditions which render it reasonably just and proper to do so. (Boehm v. Sprekels, 183 Cal. 239 [191 Pac. 5].)

Appellant claims the trial court was in error in finding that the employment was fbr a reasonable time, the ' contract of employment being silent upon a definite length of service; however, the contract was subject to termination on the happening of a contingency, that is, the contingency of dissatisfaction, and the courts and text-writers have held such to be for a.definite length of time. (Harrington v. Kansas City Cable R. Co., 60 Mo. App. 223; Yellow Poplar Lumber Co. v. Rule, 106 Ky. 455 [50 S. W. 685]; Ex parte Bryant, 24 Fla. 278 [4 So. 854, 12 Am. St. Rep. 200].) Labatt, Master and Servant, section 178, at page 566, states the rule as follows: