Court Opinion

ID: 9692986
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 16:15:11.83086+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:38.656751
License: Public Domain

F. X. O’Brien, J.
(dissenting). A contract of employment for an indefinite term is generally terminable at the will of either party. Suchodolski v Michigan Consolidated Gas Co, 412 Mich 692, 694-695; 316 NW2d 710 (1982). Well-established exceptions include firings which violate public policy, Sventko v The Kroger Co, 69 Mich App 644; 245 NW2d 151 (1976), express and implied promises to discharge only for cause, Toussaint v Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Michigan, 408 Mich 579; 292 NW2d 880 (1980), and consideration passing from employee to employer in addition to the services rendered, Lynas v Maxwell Farms, 279 Mich 684; 273 NW 315 (1937). The record in this case evidences no additional consideration or distinguishing feature which excepts it from the rule.
Plaintiff relinquished his previous employment to accept the position he had sought. His resignation was a customary and necessary incident of changing jobs. Nothing suggests that the defendant bargained for this benefit. Adolph v Cookware Co of America, 283 Mich 561; 278 NW 687 (1938); Lynas, supra, p 689; Milligan v The Union Corp, 87 Mich App 179; 274 NW2d 10 (1978).
I respectfully disagree with the majority’s view *86of the facts in the present case as being similar to those in Hackett v Foodmaker, Inc, 69 Mich App 591; 245 NW2d 140 (1976), lv den 399 Mich 823 (1977). Likewise, I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the defendant’s repudiation of the contract prior to the date set for plaintiffs performance is a distinguishing feature.
The concept of a terminable at will contract is that either party may end the relationship at any time, for any reason, and without liability. Breach or wrongful termination of such a contract is basically a contradiction in terms. An exception premised on the principle of a total anticipatory breach does not resolve the contradiction or suggest any justification for the exception. It increases confusion by allowing recovery to an employee who has not begun work while denying recovery to an employee who is discharged shortly after performance is commenced. Milligan, supra, p 183.