Vastoler v. American Can Co.

Procedural History

–          Trial judge favored for defendant because he was “promoted” the plaintiff’s case lacked significant financial detriment, if any at all.

–          Appeals court overruled this decision.

Facts

–          Vastoler sued his employer for breach of promise of greater pension benefits on which he claimed he relied on when he switched from hourly to salary employee…

–          Vastoler remained with the company due to his pension benefits that he thought he would receive.

Issue

Was there reliance on the behalf of Vastoler?

Holding

Yes.

Rule

If there is detrimental reliance on behalf of the plaintiff on which it can be reasonably inferred from the person making the promise, then, an action would be induced.

Reasoning

–          It is inferred that Vastoler stayed with the company because he got the pension promotions and to have them taken away would be unjust because he relied upon them.

Disposition

Reversed.

Comments are closed.