Court Opinion

ID: 9547084
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:41:31.808379+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:17:18.308758
License: Public Domain

FERNANDEZ, Judge, specially
concurring.
I concur in the decision because, under the unique circumstances of this case, the jury’s award was obviously based on the only legal theory which could properly have been submitted to it, that is, breach of contract.
The jury was instructed initially:
You are instructed that the plaintiff’s notice of appointment and acceptance of assignment provides that the duration of his employment was one year. Oral statements to the contrary cannot be used to contradict a specific provision in a written agreement.
Plaintiff’s only remaining claim is for the breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
This instruction was clearly incorrect. However, the trial court’s subsequent instructions on breach of the implied cove*56nant of good faith and fair dealing in effect presented the jury with the breach of contract issue:
You are instructed that in every agreement there is an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. This covenant obligates the employer and the employee. The covenant requires that neither party do anything that will injure the right of the other to receive the benefits of this agreement. The covenant does not give either party to a contract rights other than those for which they have contracted.
Plaintiffs contend that an. implied benefit of the employment agreement was that he would be given a reasonable time before his coaching performance would be evaluated. As to this claim, the plaintiffs have the burden of proof of, number one, this implied covenant existed in the employment agreement, and that, number two, the defendants prevented plaintiffs from receiving this benefit, and, number three, that plaintiffs have suffered damage as a result of the defendants’ acts.
If you decide for the plaintiffs on the question of liability, you must then fix the amount of money which will reasonably and fairly compensate for the following elements of damages proved by the evidence to have resulted from defendants’ breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing:
One, the damages for an additional three years of employment.
Two, any decrease in earning power or capacity by plaintiffs in the future.
Plaintiffs have the burden of proving each element of damages. Whether any of these elements of damages has been proved by the evidence is for you to determine.
Thus, even though the trial court initially instructed the jury that it could not consider parol evidence to contradict the provisions of the contract relating to the term of employment, its subsequent instructions necessarily permitted the jury to find that the defendants had promised Lindsey an additional three years’ of employment, that that promise was part of the contract, and that it had been breached. Implicit in the jury’s award is its finding for Lindsey on all three points. Since the award was essentially one based on breach of contract, no valid purpose would be served by vacating the judgment and remanding for a new trial.
I concur on all other issues.