Opinion ID: 1192667
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The letter of August 14, 1969, and its acceptance by plaintiff resulted in agreement sufficiently definite in its terms so as to constitute an enforceable employment contract.

Text: Defendants contend that the letter agreement dated August 14, 1969, was not a valid and binding contract of employment, as held by the trial court, because there was no meeting of the minds upon some material and essential terms and, in particular, no agreement on plaintiff's duties. [2] The letter agreement did, however, set forth the usual elements of an employment agreement in that it stated the term of employment, the amount of compensation, the place of employment, the type of employment, and a general description of the duties to be performed in that it was stated that plaintiff was to be employed in the capacity of foreman of the corporation's plastics and fiber glass department. In addition, in this case plaintiff actually worked for a considerable period of time in the capacity of foreman of the corporation's plastics and fiber glass department, during which he was treated as such by defendants and was paid compensation as specified in the employment agreement. Defendants also performed other requirements of the agreement, including the payment of $10,000 for purchase of the assets of Starliner, Inc. As stated in 1 Corbin on Contracts 407, § 95 (1963): The fact that one of [the parties] with the knowledge and approval of the other, has begun performance is nearly always evidence that they regard the contract as consummated and intend to be bound thereby. Under the facts of this case the trial court did not err in holding that the letter agreement of August 14, 1969, included provisions which constituted a valid and enforceable contract of employment.