Bernie Madoff Ponzi Scheme

769 Words4 Pages
ELLIS v. BlueSKY CHARTER SCHOOL Legal Environment, BUAD 5315 Mark Inman Instructor: Dr. April Dyer ELLIS v. BlueSKY CHARTER SCHOOL Thomas Ellis, Relator, v. BlueSky Charter School, Respondent. No. A09-1205. Court of Appeals of Minnesota. Filed April 20, 2010 Facts: In November 2008, the parties signed an employment agreement providing that Relator was to serve as the director of the school for the 2008-09 school year. The title of the agreement states the dates July 01/2008-June 30/2009. "The first sentence of the agreement lists the administrative positions to which the agreement applies and states, "This is a general at will agreement."(Ellis vs. BlueSky, 2010). Yet the agreement provides that "[p]ositions will automatically…show more content…
BlueSky, 2010). Reason: Even with a complete record of extrinsic evidence about the agreement, it would be difficult to discern what the "at will" clause was intended to mean. The most we have in this record is the statement that the board attributes to Ellis in its meeting minutes. Ellis, however, denies having acknowledged that his employment was at will. At the very least, I would remand to the board to create a complete record on the meaning of the agreement's terms and the parties' intent. See Dokmo v. Indep. School Dist. No. 11,459 N.W.2d 671, 676 (Minnesota, 1990) (stating that school board has obligation "to make a sufficient record to prove its actions were justified."). Alternatively, I would apply the well-established rule that ambiguity is to be construed against the drafter (as cited in Ellis vs. BlueSky, 2010).. References Ellis v. bluesky charter school. (2010, Apri). Retrieved from MNCO 20100420259.xml&docbase=CsLwAr3-2007-Curr&SizeDisp=7 Miller, R., & Jentz, G. (2012). Business law today. (9th ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage
Get Access