RE: Employment law question

[Jennifer Loraine Swize <jls5ec@cms.mail.virginia.edu>]

Lori:

I thought that question (now from long ago) was 
interesting, too, and it does seem like the law student 
could demonstrate the definite term of the contract the way 
you suggest.  I would also think that the law student's 
case is helped by the fact that a firm is able to calculate 
and factor in such expenses as summer law clerks (given 
that these offers are made less than a year in advance and 
the firm knows exactly how much the clerk will cost for the 
summer).  Thus, the firm does not have a right to rescind 
the offer.

Jennifer

On Wed, 23 Feb 2000 14:49:29 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) 
Lori Sue Ratliff <lsr5t@cms.mail.Virginia.EDU> wrote:
> Hi guys,
> 
> Here's a question I've been wondering about.  What do you 
> all think?
> 
> Very early in the class Rip asked whether a law clerk hired
> "for the summer" would have any protection when the law
> firm rescinded the original offer.  In that case, couldn't
> the law clerk argue that he/she had a contract for a 
> definite term, that is "for the summer?"  Then the jilted 
> clerk would either introduce evidence that "for
> the summer" typically means X number of weeks, or introduce 
> evidence that he/she accepted the offer of employment for Y 
> number of weeks.  Thus, the clerk's damages would be 
> his/her expected summer salary (mitigated of course by
> other wages earned).
> 
> Or do you think that courts require definite term contracts 
> to be more specific in terms of days, weeks, months, etc...?
> 
> Lori
>