Pitts v. McGraw-Edison Co.
329 F.2d 412 (1964)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A promise is unenforceable for lack of consideration if the promisee provides nothing in return. The doctrine of promissory estoppel does not apply if the promisee did not detrimentally rely on the promise by altering their position for the worse or giving up a legal right.
Facts:
- For approximately 25 years, L. U. Pitts worked as an independent manufacturer's representative for McGraw-Edison Company, earning commissions on sales.
- The business relationship was not governed by a written contract and was terminable at will by either party at any time without notice.
- Pitts was an independent contractor who paid his own expenses and was free to represent other companies.
- In April 1955, when Pitts was 67, McGraw-Edison's sales manager informed him that the company was arranging for his retirement.
- The company sent letters to Pitts in July 1955 stating he was on retirement effective July 1 and would be paid a 1% commission on all sales made in his former territory.
- Pitts subsequently retired and received these commission payments monthly from McGraw-Edison for five years, from July 1955 through June 1960.
- In July 1960, McGraw-Edison sent Pitts a final check along with a letter informing him that the five-year series of payments was complete and would be discontinued.
Procedural Posture:
- L. U. Pitts filed an action against McGraw-Edison Company in the U.S. District Court, seeking damages for breach of contract and a declaration of rights.
- The case was tried in the District Court without a jury.
- The District Court judge entered a judgment dismissing the plaintiff's complaint.
- Pitts (as appellant) appealed the dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a company's promise to pay post-retirement commissions to a terminable-at-will independent contractor enforceable when the contractor was not required to do anything in return and did not alter his position for the worse in reliance on the promise?
Opinions:
Majority - Shackelford Miller, Jr.
No, the promise is not enforceable. A promise is not a binding contract without consideration, and the doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked where there was no detrimental reliance. First, the court found no valid consideration for McGraw-Edison's promise. Because the relationship was terminable at will, McGraw-Edison could have ended its business with Pitts at any time without liability. Pitts was not required to do anything in return for the payments; he did not promise to refrain from competition or perform any future services. His retirement and the turning over of customer records were not bargained-for exchanges, as he was not obligated to do so. Therefore, the payments were mere gratuities that the company could terminate at will. Second, the court rejected the argument for promissory estoppel under Restatement of Contracts § 90. While a promise that induces action can sometimes be binding to prevent injustice, that was not the case here. Pitts did not alter his position for the worse; he gave up nothing to which he was legally entitled, as he could have been terminated at any moment. Since he did not lose a legal right in reliance on the promise, there is no injustice to prevent by enforcing it.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the traditional contract law requirement of consideration and clarifies the limits of the doctrine of promissory estoppel. It establishes that for an at-will contractor or employee, merely acting in accordance with a promisor's wishes (e.g., retiring) does not constitute detrimental reliance if the promisee had no legal right to the underlying position in the first place. The case underscores the vulnerability of parties in at-will relationships, showing that even long-term payments based on a promise may be deemed unenforceable gratuities if not supported by a clear, bargained-for exchange. Future cases involving promises to at-will parties would require a showing that the promisee gave up a distinct legal right or incurred a specific detriment beyond the loss of the at-will position itself.
Unlock the full brief for Pitts v. McGraw-Edison Co.