Andrus vs. State Case Analysis

Facts-

Scott Andrus was called by Tom Hill about a position as a building inspector for the city of Olympia. During the phone conversation with Andrus, Hill mentioned that Andrus was the "...number one choice and that I (Hill) am offering you the job." The city checked the Andrus's references and found them unsatisfactory. Hill called Andrus the next day to withdraw the offer due to poor reports from references. Andrus sued both the city of Olympia and the Washington Department of Transportation (his employer) claiming wrongful discharge and argued that the phone call from Hill about the position was an employment contract. Andrus also was suing for defamation, saying that the DOT was liable for providing a bad reference.

Procedural Facts-

The case started out in the district court and the made a request to dismiss Andrus's claims without a trial. Andrus appealed and the case was taken to the Washington State Appellate Court, but only on the breach of contract claim against the city.

Issue-

The court had to decide if the phone call to Andrus made from Hill could be considered an official contract.

Rule-

The court used the Restatement (Second) of Contracts 33. This law has 3 parts regarding certainty of terms.

§33. CERTAINTY

(1) Even though a manifestation of intention is intended to be understood as an offer, it cannot be accepted so as to form a contract unless the terms of the contract are reasonably certain.

(2) The terms of a contract are reasonably certain if they provide a basis for determining the existence of a breach and for giving an appropriate remedy.

-1 and 2 basically mean that there has to be criteria for the service or good promised.

(3) The fact that one or more terms of a proposed bargain are left open or uncertain may show that a manifestation of intention is not intended to be understood as an offer or as an acceptance.

-I take this to mean that because there are no certain criteria in the offer/contract,...