Carroll v. Truthin Home Loans
By Carrolls own allegations, the alleged oral agreement was not independent of the earlier contract. For one thing, the parties obviously did not intend the oral promises to be the only terms governing their new deal. A fair reading of the allegations (in accord with common sense) shows that the July 2003 promises involved extra pay for extra duties: Carroll would continue working for the loan company, but get a pay raise by also working for the real estate company.
For the same reason, the alleged July 2003 oral promises cannot qualify as a novation. In substance, the facts as alleged in the complaint do not reflect an intention to substitute a new oral agreement for the old written one; rather they only reflect an intent to embellish, i.e., modify, the old agreement, by changing merely two terms of that agreement.
Lucky for Carroll, though, that he loses on the novation issue. If the facts showed a novation, Carroll would be stuck with an agreement without a severance provision, and severance is the fourth issue, and one on which he prevails in this appeal. Since the written agreement is operative, not only is Carroll stuck with it, but so is his former employer. And in that agreement his employer promised to pay Carroll a certain amount of severance pay in the event he was ever terminated. We reverse the judgment to the degree that it precludes any amendment to add a claim for severance pay based on the written contract that Court find otherwise dispositive on the contract issues.
Comments on Carroll v. Truthin Home Loans