WELBY VS. KILEY

Case analysis of Welby vs. Kiley

Welby vs. Kiley

Introduction

In this assignment, I am going to discuss the possible consequences of the case between Dr. Welby Vs Dr. Kiley. The case comes under employment and contract law. It highlights one critical issue that whether a company can change its mind and hire some other employee after the job offer is made and accepted by an employee.

Background

Dr. Kiley works for Lopez Inc located in Pittsburg, PA. The company made a job offer to Dr. Welby who was working for Lang Memorial Hospital in California for eleven years in return for an attractive salary. Miss Welby resigned from her last job and accepted the offer of Lopez Inc. Not only this, she has sold her house because Mr. Kenly verbally asked her to move to Pittsburg. Before joining the office, Welby went to the office for orientation in which the company gave her the office uniform and written copy of the first week schedule. However, when she was leaving the office, Kiley gave her the bad news that they were planning to hire someone else.

There is no clear evidence from the description that the job offer is explicit or not. Therefore, we will assume that the offer is explicit because “offer letter” and “employment contract” is issued before joining and orientation. However, if the company has not provided those documents due to any reason, it will be regarded as an implicit offer.

Allegations on Mr. Kiley - Justified or not justified

On the basis, of "doctrine of promissory estoppels" the case can be justified (Miller, 2009). The offer is valid because it is made for a lawful purpose. However, it does not meet one condition:

Consideration

It is the value given in exchange for a promise. The value can be in the form of money and non-monetary benefit. Anything that is of value to the other party is used to stop that party from using their legal rights. In other words, it creates hindrance in filling the case.

Not-justified

Lopez Inc did not stop or prevent Dr. Welby from filling the case against them. When Kiley informed her that they were planning to hire some other candidate, she has filed a case against them without any resistance. Therefore, the preceding case doesn't meet the first requirement.

However, the case justifies the doctrine of promissory estoppels without consideration, if it meets the following conditions:

(1)The promisor made a promise that he should ...