The plaintiff is a modeling scout. Defendant modeling agency decided to hire him as a modeling scout for $190,000/year, plus bonuses.
An employment contract was prepared. One provision of the contact said that if the plaintiff were ever fired without cause, he would be entitled to 6-months severance ($95,000).
The contract also said that it could be signed in counterparts. The plaintiff signed the contract on August 18, 2015 and emailed his signature to the modeling agency. One of the agency's board members emailed back, saying "Welcome aboard. We'll countersign over the next few days." But no one from the agency ever signed the contract.
Nevertheless, the plaintiff began working as a modeling scout, and the agency paid him according to the contract. But after six months, the agency decided to terminate him, without cause. The agency then refused to pay him the $95,000 severance, and the plaintiff brought a lawsuit for breach of contract.
The modeling agency moved to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that the contract was not enforceable because the agency hadn't signed it. The lower court agreed and dismissed the lawsuit. However, on appeal, the First Department held that the contract (at this stage in the lawsuit) was enforceable:
An employment contract was prepared. One provision of the contact said that if the plaintiff were ever fired without cause, he would be entitled to 6-months severance ($95,000).
The contract also said that it could be signed in counterparts. The plaintiff signed the contract on August 18, 2015 and emailed his signature to the modeling agency. One of the agency's board members emailed back, saying "Welcome aboard. We'll countersign over the next few days." But no one from the agency ever signed the contract.
Nevertheless, the plaintiff began working as a modeling scout, and the agency paid him according to the contract. But after six months, the agency decided to terminate him, without cause. The agency then refused to pay him the $95,000 severance, and the plaintiff brought a lawsuit for breach of contract.
The modeling agency moved to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that the contract was not enforceable because the agency hadn't signed it. The lower court agreed and dismissed the lawsuit. However, on appeal, the First Department held that the contract (at this stage in the lawsuit) was enforceable:
The fact that defendant never signed the agreement is not, at this pleading stage, an impediment to a finding that the parties intended to be bound. There is nothing in the agreement stating that it will not be binding until executed by both sides. The counterparts clause provides that each party may indicate its assent by signing a separate counterpart; it does not state that the parties can assent only by signing. The merger and written amendments clauses provide only that the agreement, and any subsequent amendments, must be in writing; they do not state that the parties may convey their assent only by affixing signatures.The case will now move forward on the breach of contract and other claims.
Comments
Post a Comment