Opinion ID: 200478
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Were two claims litigated?

Text: 31 Upon review of the record, we find that the district court did not consider the issue of whether or not a separate contract was formed between SPC and the Officers. At trial, the court stated that it was clear that this is a claim of breach of an employment contract. The district court admitted the above email messages only for the purpose of completeness of the story of the parties' ongoing dealings rather than as proof of SPC's liability for, or the invalidity of, a claim or its amount. Rathje, at , n. 13, 15, 16, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4078, at , n. 13, , n. 15, , n. 16. 32 In its findings of fact, the court stated only that [n]egotiations between Hudson and the Plaintiffs concerning his offered `ex gratia' payments broke down. Id. at 8, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4078 at . In its conclusions of law, the court considered Hudson's email messages offering termination pay only for their potential effect on a breach of employment claim by the Officers — and found that there was no effect because the employment had already ceased when the statements were made. Id. at , 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4078 at -46. It is therefore clear that the court read the complaint only to incorporate a breach of employment claim, and not to also include a breach of a separate contract between the parties. 33