Court Opinion

ID: 9613443
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:16:54.567127+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:28.870697
License: Public Domain

CARDINE, Justice,
dissenting, with whom THOMAS, J., joins.
I continue my dissent to the opinion of the court and this opinion upon rehearing for the reasons previously stated. McDonald v. Mobil Coal Producing, Inc., 789 P.2d 866, 871 (Wyo.1990) (Cardine, C.J., dissenting) (McDonald I). This opinion after rehearing merely informs Mobil of addi*993tional requirements for effective disclaimer. If Mobil should in the future satisfy these requirements, can it assume that this court will give effect to its disclaimer — or should Mobil eliminate its employee handbook? Perhaps the answer will only come with more litigation.
In McDonald I, the court reversed summary judgment on the basis of promissory estoppel. Despite the disclaimer in the handbook, the court said McDonald could recover if he could demonstrate that it was reasonable to rely upon the promises contained in the handbook and if enforcement of the promises was the only way to avoid an injustice. 789 P.2d at 870. The court held that no contract was formed because there was no meeting of the minds in forming a contract. Id. at 869, citing Anderson Excavating and Wrecking Co. v. Certified Welding Corp., 769 P.2d 887 (Wyo.1988). Now, in this opinion upon rehearing, the court holds that if it was reasonable to rely upon promises in the handbook, then a contract was formed. This opinion states a contract is formed by “outward manifestations of a party’s assent sufficient to create reasonable reliance by the other party.” The language is similar to the definition of a promise in McDonald I, wherein the court said a promise is
“a manifestation of intention to act or refrain from acting in a specified way, so made as to justify a promisee in understanding that a commitment has been made.” 789 P.2d at 870, quoting Restatement, Second, Contracts § 2 (1981).
A promise is not a contract. But this court now says the making of a promise alone reasonably relied upon by another creates an enforceable contract.
It is said that whether a contract was entered into depends upon the intention of the parties. 17A Am.Jur.2d Contracts § 27 (1991). For a valid contract to exist, a meeting of the minds is necessary concerning the terms of the agreement, the parties must have intended to contract, and the contract must be supported by consideration. Anderson Excavating, 769 P.2d at 889; United States Through Farmers Home Administration v. Redland, 695 P.2d 1031, 1036 (Wyo.1985); Miller v. Miller, 664 P.2d 39, 40 (Wyo.1983). It is clear from the disclaimer that Mobil never intended to make a contract. There was never a meeting of the minds nor was there a valid consideration. There was no contract. That is why this court in McDonald I rested its decision to reverse upon the doctrine of promissory estoppel. I would affirm the decision of the trial court.