Court Opinion

ID: 9767860
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 05:31:04.443893+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:33.922370
License: Public Domain

McMILLIAN, Judge
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent.
To adopt the majority opinion is to totally ignore plaintiff’s own theory of the case. Plaintiff candidly admits, both at trial and on this appeal, that he was proceeding upon the theory that the contract in issue was unilateral. Interestingly enough, plaintiff also conceded that he was not bound by the contract and could stop performance at any time he chose to do so. Moreover, a cursory examination of plaintiff’s verdict-director, set out in footnote number two (2) in the majority opinion, indicates that the instruction submitted a promise for an act, i. e., a unilateral contract. Nowhere does the questioned instruction submit a bilateral agreement, i. e., an agreement based upon mutual promises each given in exchange for the other.
While the majority opinion recognizes the validity of unilateral contracts for services or products which the other party, at his discretion may or may not perform or supply the requested services or products, they make the bold assertion that the same rule does not apply to the employment contract. Fullington v. Ozark Poultry Supply Co., 327 Mo. 1167, 39 S.W.2d 780 (1931), and Beebe v. Columbia Axle Co., 233 Mo.App. 212, 117 S.W.2d 624 (1938).
The Fullington case is inapposite. There, Fullington and Ozark Poultry Company had entered into a written, signed agreement for Fullington to serve as Ozark’s general sales manager in charge of all sales for a period of five years at a stated rate of compensation, and Fulling-ton accepted the employment. Both parties agreed that Fullington was to devote his entire time and attention to the business of Ozark, if and when, in his opinion and judgment, the affairs of Ozark required it. Also Fullington was given the right to use his own judgment as to the amount of time he was to spend in the office and on the road in the performance of his duties. The lower court sustained Ozark’s demur to Fullington’s petition for breach of contract because it failed to state a cause of action. The decision was reversed by the court as it found the obligations of the parties arose from mutual promises to hire and to serve, supplemented by actual service. In the instant case, unlike the Fullington case, plaintiff neither signed an agreement nor promised to be bound for anything. The only promise came from the defendant in exchange for an act.
*888In the Beebe case, supra, the court was dealing with an agency contract, coupled with an interest to the extent of $1500.00 expended by plaintiff in his preliminary efforts for laying the foundation for a successful business in the sale and distribution of defendant’s axles. The question posed by the court for decision was: whether the defendant, having revoked the plaintiff’s agency, was liable to the plaintiff for the reasonable value of his services rendered and his expenditures incurred. The court, among other things, declared, “Even if invalid and nonenforceable ... by reason of its unilateral character or by reason that, ... it was subject to termination at any time thereafter by either of the parties — it was nevertheless valid and binding to the extent that it was performed.” (Emphasis added.) In our case defendant concedes and, in fact, has paid plaintiff for all of his services performed. No where in either Beebe or the Fullington case is there anything to suggest that plaintiff was entitled to be paid or was, in fact, paid for the executory portion of the contract. Moreover, in neither of the two cited cases was it even intimated that Beebe or Ful-lington was not performing his duty in a satisfactory manner.
Here, the plaintiff was discharged by Kubiak and Flynn on September 8, 1967, for failing to properly perform his duties in that: (1) he did not secure manufacturing orders that Titanium was capable of filling; (2) he acted contrary to the officer’s orders; and (3) he failed to supply a resume as required as a condition of employment. While on a trip to Titusville, Florida, plaintiff was allegedly instructed to go to the Dallas-Fort Worth area. Instead, Vondras traveled to Hagerstown, Maryland, where, according to defendant’s president, the company had no business. Plaintiff testified that his trip to Maryland had been part of the itinerary he had submitted to Flynn for his approval prior to his trip and which itinerary Flynn had approved. Upon learning that Vondras had traveled to Maryland instead of Texas, Flynn and Kubiak terminated plaintiff’s services.
The plaintiff’s theory of recovery in this case is based upon the premise that the letter of July 12, 1967, created a contract that the defendant could not revoke after the contract had been partially performed. To support his position, plaintiff cites the Restatement of Contracts, § 45 (1932) :
“If an offer for a unilateral contract is made, and part of the consideration requested in the offer is given or tendered by the offeree in response thereto, the offeror is bound by a contract, the duty of immediate performance of which is conditional on the full consideration being given or tendered within the time stated in the offer, or, if no time is stated therein, within a reasonable time.”
For example:
“1. If A says to B, T will not ask you to promise to instal an intra-mural telephone system which will work perfectly in my building, but if you care to try to do it, I will pay you $1,000 if you suceed.’
“B begins the work. When it is partly finished, A revokes his offer. If B can prove that he would have complied with the terms of the offer, he has a right to damages — the contract price less the cost of completing the installation . . . ” Rest. Contracts, § 45, Comments and Illustrations (1932).
I find no inconsistency between § 45 of the Restatement of Contracts and the Solace v. T. J. Moss Tie Co., 142 S.W.2d 1079 (Mo.App.1940). The illustration cited from the Restatement about a unilateral offer of $1,000.00 to repair a telephone system, revoked after the offeree commenced work but before he finished the work, is certainly consistent with Missouri law. Certainly where performance has begun and the contract is not divisible, equity and good conscience, would demand that the offeror be estopped from revoking his offer. This for the reason that the offeree should at *889least be given a reasonable time to complete performance. This is in no way comparable to the facts in the Solace case, or in the case at bar, where the alleged “part performance” of the offer of a divisible unilateral contract was fully compensated by periodical payments for the work done.
The defendant contends that, even if the letter of July 12, 1967, is construed as an agreement in writing between the plaintiff and the defendant, the agreement is void for lack of mutuality. It is defendant’s further contention that after pleading a written contract, the plaintiff submitted his case on a unilateral contract theory as evidenced by plaintiff’s verdict-directing Instruction No. 3.1 Defendant suggests that, even if a unilateral contract is found, it would be unenforceable to the extent that it remained executory.
Under the rationale announced by this court in Solace v. T. J. Moss Tie Co., 142 S.W.2d 1079 (Mo.App.1940), the letter in this case is void for lack of mutuality and the executory portion of the alleged agreement is not binding upon the parties. In the Solace case plaintiff sought to recover damages arising out of an alleged breach by defendant of the remaining executory part of an alleged five year employment contract. The case involved a letter from the vice-president of the defendant company, Davis, to the Superintendent of defendant’s operation in Louisiana, Wagner, with a copy going to the plaintiff, in which defendant’s vice-president identified the plaintiff and acknowledged a five-year employment contract with the plaintiff for the production of railroad ties. Solace testified that the defendant’s vice-president stated he “ . . . would write out a contract and mail it to Mr. Wagner . ” (1.c. 1081). This court found that “ . . . The letter itself is but an admission that Davis had entered into a contract with Solace, and that said agreement embodied the several provisions set out in the letter.” (1.c. 1081).
The letter in this case and the circumstances under which it was written are nearly identical to the situation in the Solace case. This court stated in Solace that:
“Even though the letter itself were construed as an agreement in writing between defendant and plaintiff, we find therein no mutual promises to hire and to serve or to purchase and to produce. Nowhere therein do we find that plaintiff either agreed or bound himself to devote any of his time or effort for a period of five years to the production of ties and lumber for defendant. This letter which is the basis of plaintiff’s action falls within that class of agreements which depend for performance upon the wish, will, or pleasure of one of the parties, and is, therefore, unilateral and void for want of mutuality. American Law Institute’s Restatement of the Laws of Contract, § 13; Fuqua v. Lumbermen’s Supply Co., 229 Mo.App. 210, 218, 76 S.W.2d 715; Hudson v. Browning, 264 Mo. 58, 64, 174 S.W. 393; Campbell v. American Handle Co., 117 Mo.App. 19, 23, 94 S.W. 815; Aden v. Dalton, 341 Mo. 454, 107 S.W.2d 1070, 1073.”
Further support for defendant’s argument can be found in Spencer v. General Electric, 243 F.2d 934 (8th Cir. 1957), where the court said, “Unilateralness or want of mutuality, if it exists, is available only to escape such executory performance as may be remaining under agreement or relationship and does not prevent application of provisions of agreement or relationship to such performance as has been completed.”
The letter in this case fails to qualify as a bilateral contract in that there is a lack of mutuality of obligation. There are no mutual promises between the parties embodied in the letter that would mutually bind the parties to enforceable duties to each other. The letter is void of any mutual promises to hire and to serve. The absence of such mutual promises indicates *890that there is a lack of sufficient consideration upon which a valid contract could be formed. Without the needed consideration there is no binding contract. Obviously, the plaintiff must have reached the same conclusion because his instruction to the jury was based upon a unilateral contract.
In this case, as in the Solace case, the plaintiff sought to recover damages arising out of an alleged breach by the defendant of the remaining executory part of the alleged employment contract. This court held (at l.c. 1082), “. . . But mere part performance of a contract which is not binding on the parties does not make it binding in so far as it remains execu-tory. 17 C.J.S. Contracts § 100, p. 450; Campbell v. American Handle Co., supra; Fuqua v. Lumbermen’s Supply Co., supra; Roberts v. Harmount Tie & Lbr. Co., Mo.App., 264 S.W. 448, 449. Therefore, the contract lacks mutuality, it is void so far as the executory portion of the contract is concerned, and no action for a breach of such a contract lies.”
The law in Missouri is well-settled that where there is a want of mutuality in a unilateral contract situation, performance of the executory portion of the contract is not binding on the parties. Jensen v. McCall’s Estate, 426 S.W.2d 52, 57 (Mo.1968); Bengimina v. Allen, 575 S.W.2d 199, 204 (Mo.App.1964); Martin v. Ray County Coal Co., 288 Mo. 241, 232 S.W. 149, 151 (1921). See also, Zeyher v. S. S. & S. Manufacturing Company, 319 F.2d 606 (7th Cir. 1963), which involved a claimed written contract in the form of a letter to the employee from the president of the company, in which he said that the company agreed to employ plaintiff for three years. The employment was terminated about fourteen months later. The court held, just as Solace did and as our courts have held, that the contract was lacking in mutuality, that plaintiff’s “part performance” under the contract did not render it valid, and denied plaintiff’s claim for damages for the unexecuted term of the alleged contract.
Accordingly, I find that as a matter of law the contract between the two parties is void for lack of mutuality of obligation and plaintiff therefore does not have a cause of action for the breach of the ex-ecutory portion of the contract. I would reverse the judgment with the direction that the trial court enter judgment for the defendant.

. See Footnote No. 2 in majority opinion.