Schott v. Westinghouse Electric Corporation

259 A.2d 443 (1969)

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

D had a formalized suggestion program under which its employees were invited to submit to D any suggestions they might have for increasing production and reducing costs; 'Cash awards ranging from a minimum of $5.00 to a maximum of $15,000 will be paid for each suggestion adopted.” Space was provided for the statement of the employee's suggestion. Beneath that space and immediately above the signature line where the employee-suggester was to sign was the following stipulation: 'In submitting this suggestion, I agree that the decision of the local Suggestion Committee on all matters pertaining to this suggestion, my eligibility for an award, and the amount of award, if any, will be final. I further understand that if this suggestion is rejected, I have the right to reopen it within 12 months from the date of rejection, or to re-submit it as a new suggestion at any time thereafter. P submitted a suggestion that certain panels used on circuit breakers manufactured by D be made from fabricated heavy gauge steel rather than the material then used, cast aluminum. P properly submitted the suggestion, and the Suggestion Committee rejected the idea. P was informed that 'If breaker re-design is started for other reasons in the future, this idea will be considered.' He was also advised, in the same communication, that his suggestion could be reopened within a year or resubmitted after a year. P submitted again and was rejected. Eventually D did adopt P's idea but claimed it was the result of independent action taken without knowledge of your P's suggestion,' and reaffirmed D's refusal to make an award to P. P filed a complaint which averred that D had adopted the appellant's suggestion and prayed for an accounting as to the Company's savings therefrom, and damages equal to 20% thereof. In sustaining D's objections, the lower court found that the suggestion program was an invitation to its employees to make an offer; that the offer of D was by its terms subject to acceptance or rejection by the Company through its Committees; and that the offer had been duly and consistently rejected by D. The court further held: 'Plaintiff is bound by the statement to which he agreed that the decision of the Suggestion Committee will be final on all matters pertaining to his suggestion and his eligibility for an award unless there is fraud or deceit practiced by or an unjust enrichment enuring to D and no such allegations are made in this case.' Finding that no enforceable contract had been pleaded by P, the court sustained D's preliminary objections and granted P leave to amend his complaint. P filed an amended complaint seeking damages both under a theory of contract and under a theory sounding in unjust enrichment, properly set forth in a separate count. Holding that P was bound by the adverse determinations of the Suggestion Committee, the court below sustained the objections and dismissed the amended complaint. The court did not specifically consider the newly pleaded second cause of action. P appealed.