Brief of CASE 20.doc

INTRODUCTION TO LAW CHAPTER 1 Lindsey Adelman BLaw 3058 Section 002 Brief of CASE 20-1 Schoenberger v. Chicago Transit Authority Facts: The defendant, Chicago Transit Authority, is being sued by Schoenberger, the plaintiff, for not upholding a promise of a $500 raise within one year. A contractual agreement was drawn up, stating that Schoenberger?s salary was to be $19,800. The plaintiff accepted this agreement. The paperwork later given to Schoenberger stated he was to get $19,300, less $500. The plaintiff asked the defendant about the discrepancy. The plaintiff was told that the $500 would be added at next review time, to which he agreed. The next review was cancelled due to additional time needed for proper evaluation. When the plaintiff actually did get his review, no raise was given. The plaintiff then quit and filed suit. Issue: Was the interviewer an agent of Chicago Transit Authority? Decision: Ruling for defendant, Chicago Transit Authority. Reasons: Trial court ruled it was inconceivable for plaintiff to believe the HR interviewer to have final authority, and it was not shown a promise was made to plaintiff by authorized agent of CTA. The HR interviewer?s authority must be traced to determine if he was an authorized agent to make such a promise. HR interviewer was in a lower level position and never had authority to set salary. He never implied that he had such authority. Also CTA never ratified the promise of the so called agent. Rule: The person alleging authority must prove in source that the agent had authority unless act is ratified.