Management Search v. Morgan

10 Citing cases

  1. BDI Laguna Holdings, Inc. v. Marsh

    301 Ga. App. 656 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 9 times
    Holding that a promise of additional compensation to an employee was not enforceable because the payment "was something extra for which no services were rendered and no return promise was required" (footnote omitted)

    (Citation and punctuation omitted; emphasis in original.) Mgmt. Search v. Morgan, 136 Ga. App. 651, 653 (1) ( 222 SE2d 154) (1975). Therefore, had the promise of stock in the June 16 letter been a part of the original agreement at the beginning of Marsh's employment, it would have been enforceable, assuming it was sufficiently definite.

  2. Richardson v. Levitt

    569 S.E.2d 534 (Ga. 2002)   Cited 3 times

    ]" (Punctuation omitted.) Management Search v. Morgan, 136 Ga. App. 651, 653(1) ( 222 S.E.2d 154) (1975). "By the former definition there are no services rendered, and the latter contemplates an agreed promise to pay."

  3. Arby's, Inc. v. Cooper

    265 Ga. 240 (Ga. 1995)   Cited 32 times
    Holding that a promise of a future bonus that was only partially tied to a formula and was otherwise left to a supervisor’s discretion was not a sufficiently definite promise of future compensation to be enforceable

    To be enforceable, a promise of future compensation must be made at the beginning of the employment. Management Search v. Morgan, 136 Ga. App. 651, 653-654 (1) ( 222 S.E.2d 154) (1975); Sineath v. Lane Co., 160 Ga. App. 402, 405 ( 287 S.E.2d 341) (1981). However, the promise of future compensation must also be for an exact amount or based upon a "formula or method for determining the exact amount of the bonus.

  4. Mosaic Bus. Advisory Servs., Inc. v. Stone

    336 Ga. App. 28 (Ga. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 2 times

    (Punctuation omitted; emphasis in original.) BDI Laguna Holdings, Inc. v. Marsh, 301 Ga.App. 656, 658(1), 689 S.E.2d 39 (2009), quoting Mgmt. Search, Inc. v. Morgan, 136 Ga.App. 651, 653(1), 222 S.E.2d 154 (1975).But Mosaic's application of this rule oversimplifies the present factual context, which involved a negotiation between company founders and directors over their compensation package, which negotiation arose at the time one was terminated and subsequently resumed her position for the purpose of coming to terms about compensation.

  5. Sims v. Bayside Capital, Inc.

    327 Ga. App. 47 (Ga. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 9 times
    Explaining that the promise to pay severance included "six months of his salary as severance, ... health insurance coverage through the end of 2011, and a payment of $175,000 as reimbursement for legal fees."

    (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Mgmt. Search v. Morgan, 136 Ga.App. 651, 653(1), 222 S.E.2d 154 (1975) (bonus not based upon any new consideration was mere gratuity); see also Gale v. Hayes Microcomputer Products, 192 Ga.App. 30, 30–31(1), 383 S.E.2d 590 (1989) (at-will employee not entitled to further payments after termination). Sims agreed, however, to “be available” and assist with the transition of the “finance function” for an additional month as consideration for the oral agreement.

  6. Sims v. Bayside Capital, Inc.

    A13A1883 (Ga. Ct. App. Mar. 25, 2014)

    (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Mgmt. Search v. Morgan, 136 Ga. App. 651, 653 (1) (222 SE2d 154) (1975) (bonus not based upon any new consideration was mere gratuity); see also Gale v. Hayes Microcomputer Products, 192 Ga. App. 30, 30-31 (1) (383 SE2d 590) (1989) (at-will employee not entitled to further payments after termination). Sims agreed, however, to "be available" and assist with the transition of the "finance function" for an additional month as consideration for the oral agreement.

  7. Brunson v. C. B. A., Inc.

    376 S.E.2d 706 (Ga. Ct. App. 1988)   Cited 4 times

    Brunson would not have been required to give the company "additional" consideration over and above the performance of his job as a sales representative in order to accept the offer created by these alleged promises. Compare Management Search v. Morgan, 136 Ga. App. 651 ( 222 S.E.2d 154) (1975) (holding that an employer's promise to pay a bonus to an employee was not enforceable where the employee was already obligated under a written contract to perform the services in question). Similarly misplaced is C. B. A.'s reliance on cases holding that agreements merely to seek agreement in the future are not enforceable. See, e.g., Hartrampf v. C S Realty Investors, 157 Ga. App. 879, 881 ( 278 S.E.2d 750) (1981); Nuclear Assurance Corp. v. Dames Moore, 137 Ga. App. 688 ( 225 S.E.2d 97) (1976).

  8. Schwarze v. Solo Cup Co.

    112 Ill. App. 3d 632 (Ill. App. Ct. 1983)   Cited 30 times
    In Schwarze v. Solo Cup Co. (1983), 112 Ill. App.3d 632, 445 N.E.2d 872, a discharged employee filed suit seeking damages for alleged breach of the employment agreement.

    The case law has upheld such distinctions in similar situations. ( Pleasants v. Pleasants (1971), 27 Ohio App.2d 191, 273 N.E.2d 339 (salary is fixed payment for services); Management Search, Inc. v. Morgan (1975), 136 Ga. App. 651, 222 S.E.2d 154 (bonus is paid in addition to normal consideration); Boyett v. Landon (1977), 238 Ga. 175, 231 S.E.2d 765 (the term "salary" in divorce decree includes only fixed compensation and not bonuses); In re Estate of Gregoriou (1976), 142 N.J. Super. 465, 361 A.2d 636 (bonus is paid in excess of payment for services).) Thus we find that the bonus Schwarze received was not salary and therefore will not be offset against his damages under the Agreement.

  9. Sineath v. Lane Co.

    160 Ga. App. 402 (Ga. Ct. App. 1981)   Cited 6 times

    [Cit.]'" Management Search, Inc. v. Morgan, 136 Ga. App. 651, 653 ( 222 S.E.2d 154) (1975). "Thus, even assuming, arguendo, `that the findings of fact contended for by the (appellant) would have been authorized by the evidence presented on the trial, yet, where the facts found by the trial court were authorized by the evidence, such findings will not be set aside.

  10. Dinnan v. Totis

    159 Ga. App. 352 (Ga. Ct. App. 1981)   Cited 8 times

    To say a raise or a fringe benefit of that type is without consideration is no longer rational. Compare Duncan v. Cone, Inc., 16 Ga. App. 253 ( 85 S.E. 203); Management Search Inc. v. Morgan, 136 Ga. App. 651, 653 ( 222 S.E.2d 154). For, without the raise or added benefit, the employee will actually suffer a reduction in wages and would therefore seek employment elsewhere. Also, raises are often given for seniority or time in service without regard to increased tasks or responsibility.