Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 17,600+ case briefs...

Plowman v. Indian Refining Co.

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Illinois
20 F. Supp. 1 (1937)


Plowman v. Indian Refining Co.

Facts

Eighteen employees, including Plowman (the employees) (plaintiffs), of Indian Refining Co. (Indian Refining) (defendant) were let go from the company and began receiving pension checks. These employees had all worked for Indian Refining for a number of years before they were let go. The employees were retained on the payroll, but did not render any further services for the company. Most of the employees testified that they were told they would receive the pension checks throughout the rest of their lives. A letter from Indian Refining to the employees stated that the pension checks were being paid in recognition of many years of faithful service and in order to shield the employees from the effects of having to let them go. In order to receive their pension checks, the employees needed to pick them up from the main office. A year after promising the pension checks, Indian Refining discontinued the payments. The employees filed suit for breach of contract.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Lindley, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 457,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 457,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 17,600 briefs, keyed to 984 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.

Questions & Answers


Could there have been a benefit to Indian Refining Co to constitute consideration?

When Indian Refining Co. "offered" this pension plan, they had a new manager, were experiencing difficult economic times, and needed to increase productivity and lay off workers. They choose these 18 plaintiffs because they were "old" and had worked there for a long time. I feel like they offered these employee's this pension so they would "quit" or "retire" without a fuss because well some had worked there for over 30 years. I dont understand how no consideration can be found because Indian Refining Co DID benefit from these old employee's stopping work. They were able to cut costs and maybe hire younger more productive employees.
What I don't get is that it seems like some of these employee's actually wanted to continue to work and did not want to retire. They had no choice. This is a business, they weren't thinking about there "moral duty" to these employee's, they were thinking about how can we get rid of them (benefiting them) and increase productivity (benefiting them) without them causing a problem (detrimental to company). I see the promisee benefiting and the promisor benefiting.

Want to see this answer?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and get access to all answers in our Q&A database

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial

Tempor minim nulla id mollit ullamco consequat aliquip adipisicing irure officia tempor. Magna sit eiusmod laborum proident laboris ex sunt. Non labore ex officia irure qui et laboris aliqua in minim. Labore velit aliqua proident officia cillum occaecat dolore tempor. Ullamco in consequat labore amet laborum proident reprehenderit anim cillum excepteur. Elit do nostrud nisi excepteur sit dolor pariatur fugiat. Nisi incididunt incididunt do est velit excepteur enim excepteur incididunt mollit pariatur. Irure tempor non in esse do. Laboris eiusmod in ad ut enim est duis ad sint veniam eiusmod.

What about enforcing the payments on promissory estoppel, is that an avenue that could be validly taken?

Want to see this answer?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and get access to all answers in our Q&A database

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial

Tempor minim nulla id mollit ullamco consequat aliquip adipisicing irure officia tempor. Magna sit eiusmod laborum proident laboris ex sunt. Non labore ex officia irure qui et laboris aliqua in minim. Labore velit aliqua proident officia cillum occaecat dolore tempor. Ullamco in consequat labore amet laborum proident reprehenderit anim cillum excepteur. Elit do nostrud nisi excepteur sit dolor pariatur fugiat. Nisi incididunt incididunt do est velit excepteur enim excepteur incididunt mollit pariatur. Irure tempor non in esse do. Laboris eiusmod in ad ut enim est duis ad sint veniam eiusmod.