George v. School District No. 8R
Oregon Court of Appeals
490 P.2d 1009 (1971)
- Written by Jayme Weber, JD
Facts
School District No. 8R (District) (defendant), a midsize district, hired Robert George (plaintiff) to teach math and coach football under a three-year contract. The contract provided that George’s salary for teaching would be $11,300 a year, and that George would receive another $2,000 for coaching football. During George’s first year under this contract, however, the District fired George from coaching football. Soon afterward, the District sent its annual letters asking teachers to confirm whether they would be continuing under their contracts. George’s letter stated that his salary would be $11,300 for the following school year. George wrote back that he would teach the following year if he received the additional $2,000 provided for in his contract. The District took this as a rejection, and filled George’s position. George sued the District for breach of contract. George asked for specific performance requiring the District to reinstate George. As the case continued, George worked as a substitute teacher in Reedsport district. Reedsport offered George a full-time position, but George turned it down to keep open the possibility of the court ordering reinstatement. Ultimately, the trial court found that the District had breached the contract. The court ordered that the District reinstate George for the third year of the contract, and pay damages for the then-passed second year. The second-year damages were the difference between George’s contract salary and George’s substitute-teaching earnings from that year. The District appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Schwab, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 777,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.