Question

One-Year Contract Robert S. Ohanian was vice president of sales for the West Region of Avis Rent a Car System, Inc. (Avis). Officers of Avis testified that Ohanian’s performance in the West Region was excellent, and, in a depressed economic period, Ohanian’s West Region stood out as the one region that was growing and profitable. In the fall of 1980, when Avis’s Northeast Region was doing badly, the president of Avis asked Ohanian to take over that region. Ohanian was reluctant to do so because he and his family liked living in San Francisco, and he had developed a good team in the West Region, was secure in his position, and feared the politics of the Northeast Region. Ohanian agreed to the transfer only after the general manager of Avis orally told him “unless you screw up badly, there is no way you are going to get fired— you will never get hurt here in this company.” Ohanian did a commendable job in the Northeast Region. Approximately one year later, at the age of 47, Ohanian was fired without cause by Avis. Ohanian sued Avis for breach of the oral lifetime contract. Avis asserted the Statute of Frauds against this claim. Who wins? Ohanian v. Avis Rent a Car System, Inc., 779 F.2d 101, Web 1985 U.S. App. Lexis 25456 (United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit)

Answer 1

Issue:

The issue here in the above case is whether the oral promise made by Avis to Ohanian is legally enforceable in a court of law and does Ohanian have the right to any compensation against Avis for breach of oral promise.

Rules:

Well the rules in this regard is that a contract between two parties can be oral or in written and both will be legally enforceable in a court of law however, there must be necessary evidence to support the claim made by a party or the other for giving verdict to any case.    

Application:

In this case the oral communication between Avis and Ohanian in respect of the transfer of the later in the Northeast region was not documented neither official it seems. Thus, Ohanian will find it difficult to prove that in a court of law that Avis had made any such promise until unless Avis agreed of making such promise in the court. Hence, the decision in the above case will be dependent on the sufficient to prove to suggest the oral communication and its validity.

Conclusion:

In all likelihood Avis is likely to win the case against Ohanian as there is nothing to support the claim of Ohanian about the oral promise made by Avis of lifetime job security of Ohanian.