BLAW 3058 Study Guide - Sparkling Wine
Document Summary
Facts: the defendant, chicago transit authority, is being sued by schoenberger, the plaintiff, for not upholding a promise of a raise within one year. A contractual agreement was drawn up, stating that. The paperwork later given to schoenberger stated he was to get ,300, less . The plaintiff asked the defendant about the discrepancy. The plaintiff was told that the would be added at next review time, to which he agreed. The next review was cancelled due to additional time needed for proper evaluation. When the plaintiff actually did get his review, no raise was given. Reasons: trial court ruled it was inconceivable for plaintiff to believe the hr interviewer to have final authority, and it was not shown a promise was made to plaintiff by authorized agent of cta. The hr interviewer"s authority must be traced to determine if he was an authorized agent to make such a promise.
