BUS-FPX3021_Km_Assessment1-2.docx

Contract Law M Fundamentals of Business Law Capella University

Case Law Analysis and Executive Brief: Robert S. Ohanian v. Avis Rent a Car Systems, Inc. 779 F.2d 101 (1985) Introduction Case law analysis is an integral part of studying and understanding legal precedents that shape business operations. One such case that demonstrates the potential impact of court rulings on businesses is Robert S. Ohanian v. Avis Rent a Car Systems, Inc. This essay delves into the background facts of the case, the specific disagreement and ruling of the court, and its importance to business law and ethical implications. Background Facts In 1980, Robert S. Ohanian, a long-time employee of AVIS Rent a Car Systems, Inc., was approached to relocate to the North East for a sales position. After initially declining the opportunity, Ohanian accepted the offer based on a verbal contract that guaranteed lifetime employment unless he engaged in severe misconduct. However, within a year of his relocation, Ohanian was terminated without just cause or severance pay. He subsequently filed a lawsuit against Avis, alleging breach of contract (Ohanian V. Avis Rent a Car System, Inc., 779 F. 2d 101 - Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit 1985 - Google Scholar, n.d.). Specific Disagreement and Ruling of the Court

Avis argued that the oral contract should be barred by the statute of frauds and the parol evidence rule, and that the evidence presented by Ohanian was insufficient to establish a promise of lifetime employment. The statute of frauds mandates certain contracts to be in writing to prevent fraud. However, the court ruled that Avis's pledge of lifetime employment could be performed in one year by terminating the employee for cause, thereby not falling under the statute of frauds. Under the parol evidence rule, Avis contended that the relocation expense plan did not include a promise of lifetime employment. However, the court found that Ohanian's intent was not to form a contract by signing the relocation expense plan, but rather by accepting the oral promise of lifetime employment. Therefore, the parol evidence rule was deemed irrelevant (Ohanian V. Avis Rent a Car System, Inc., 779 F. 2d 101 - Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit 1985 - Google Scholar, n.d.). Avis further argued that there was insufficient evidence to support a promise of lifetime employment. Nonetheless, Ohanian's counsel successfully demonstrated that Ohanian had accepted the relocation based on a promise made by the Vice President, stating that he would not be fired unless he severely mishandled his responsibilities. As no evidence was presented to prove that Ohanian had "totally screwed up" or engaged in any conduct justifying termination, the court ruled in favor of Ohanian (Ohanian V. Avis Rent a Car System, Inc., 779 F. 2d 101 - Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit 1985 - Google Scholar, n.d.).

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help