Kari
v. General Motors Corp.
79
Mich.App. 93, 261 N.W.2d 222 (1977).
Facts: Kari was fired from
GM. Kari sued to get “separation pay” he
thought that he had coming to him in accordance with the GM handbook he got
when he was first employed. The handbook
contained conspicuous disclaimers saying that it was not to be taken to
constitute a contract between GM and its employees. The trial court entered summary judgment for
the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed.
Issue: Did the separation pay
section in the employee handbook constitute an offer of contract that Kari
accepted by accepting employment with GM?
Rule: An employer’s
communications to employees may constitute an offer to contract if that offer
contains a promise communicated in a way such that the promisee can justly
expect performance and can justly rely on the promise.
Analysis: The court says that since
the handbook explicitly says that it’s not a contract and GM really couldn’t
have done more to show that this is so, it’s not a contract.
Conclusion: The court upholds the
summary judgment against the plaintiff.