1. What did Woolley do to show his acceptance of the terms of employment offered to him? Woolley continued to work after he received and read the employee manual. This implied that he agreed with the terms of the employment manual. 2. In part of the case not included here, the court notes that Mr. Woolley died “before oral arguments on this case.” How can there be any damages if the plaintiff has died? Who now has any case to pursue? The executor of Mr. Wolley’s estate could continue the lawsuit and proceed with the case in the name of the plaintiff. If any damages were awarded they would be distributed by the executor to the family members. 3. The court here is changing the law of employment in New Jersey. It is making case law, and the rule here articulated governs similar future cases in New Jersey. Why did the court make this change? The court made the change to avoid having disgruntled employees sue their employers for no reason. An employer has the right to keep or release and employee just as an employee has the right to stay with a company or to quit. Why is it relevant that the court says it would be easy for an employer to avoid this problem? I think it is relevant to encourage other employers to add a simple statement in the handbooks to avoid taking up the courts time and resources. This would also clear up any future confusion.
1. What objective evidence was there to support the defendants’ contention that they were just kidding when they agreed to sell the farm? There is no objective evidence that this was a joke. Many business deals are transacted in a bar while drinking. The defendants’ did not outwardly make it know that they were kidding, the husband even whispered to his wife. 2. Suppose the defendants really did think the whole thing was a kind of joke. Would that make any difference? If would not make a difference if the defendants really were joking as they did not make it known...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document