Katz v. Danny Dare, Inc.

610 S.W. 2d 121 (1980)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P began work for D in 1950 and continued in that employ until his retirement on June 1, 1975. The president of D was Harry Shopmaker, who was also the brother of P's wife. P worked in a variety of positions including executive vice president, sales manager, and a member of the board of directors, although he was not a member of the board at the time of his retirement. P was opening a store and placed a bag of money on the counter next to the cash register. A man walked in, picked up the bag of money and left. P followed him and attempted to retrieve the money. P was struck in the head. He was hospitalized had some difficulties. His walk was impaired, and he suffered some memory loss and was not able to function as he had before. Shopmaker and others testified to many mistakes which P made after his return. Shopmaker began discussions with P concerning retirement. P wanted to remain an employee. Shopmaker first offered P $10,500 per year as a pension. Shopmaker then proposed annual pension payments of $13,000. P accepted the offer of a pension of $13,000 per year for life, and on May 22, 1975, the board of directors unanimously approved the resolution. P retired on June 1, 1975, at age 67. D paid the pension. In July 1978, D sent a semi-monthly check for $250 instead of $500. P sent the check back and stated he was entitled to the full $500. D stopped sending any checks. Shopmaker testified that he cut off the checks to P because he felt P's health had improved to the point that he could work, as demonstrated by the part-time job he held. P testified the decrease was made after Shopmaker told him he would have to work one-half day for five days a week for D or his pension would be cut in half. Katz testified he was not able to work 40 hours per week in 1978 at age 70. P based his claim on the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel as applied in Feinberg v. Pfeiffer Company. It found that the pension from D did not require P to do anything and he was free to work for another company. Since P had the choice of accepting retirement and a pension or being fired, that it could not be said that he suffered any detriment or significant change of position when he elected to retire. The court found that it could not find any injustice. P had received about $40,000 plus a paid vacation for his wife and himself to Hawaii. P appealed.