(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.
]" (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."
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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
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).
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.
[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.
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.