Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

29 N.C. App. 504

224 S.E.2d 698

Tatum v. Brown

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · decided 1976-05-19

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““Where a contract of employment contains no provision concerning the duration or term of employment, or the means hy which it may be terminated, it is terminable at the will of either party, with or without cause. Still v. Lance, 279 N.C. 254 , 182 S.E. 2d 403 (1971); 5 N.C. Index 2d, Master and Servant, § 10, p. 327.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including 52 N.C. App. 579 - Bennett v. Eastern Rebuilders, Inc.

Relies on Smith v. Ford Motor Co. · Still v. Lance

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1976-05-19

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently January 2011

16 state decisions

10019761980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

*505 ARNOLD, Judge.

¶1 Plaintiff’s contention in this appeal is that the motion to dismiss was improperly granted. Defendant’s position is that plaintiff alleged a contract of employment at will, and that her allegations, taken as true for purposes of the motion to dismiss, give rise to no claim upon which relief can be granted. We agree with defendant’s position.

¶2 Where a contract of employment contains no provision concerning the duration or term of employment, or the means by which it may be terminated, it is terminable at the will of either party, with or without cause. Still v. Lance, 279 N.C. 254, 182 S.E. 2d 403 (1971) ; 5 N. C. Index 2d, Master and Servant, § 10, p. 327. There is no allegation in the instant case concerning the duration or means of termination of the employment. It therefore appears as a certainty that plaintiff is entitled to no relief. Even though there may be merit in her allegations plaintiff does not stake a claim upon which relief can be granted. The action was not improperly dismissed. Smith v. Ford Motor Co., 289 N.C. 71, 221 S.E. 2d 282 (1976).

¶3 We also agree with defendant’s position that the doctrine of promissory estoppel does not apply in this action for breach of employment contract.

¶4 The order of the trial court is

¶5 Affirmed.

Judges Britt and Vaughn concur.
/29/ncapp/504 · .json · Public domain