Price v. Oklahoma College of Osteopathic Medicine and Surgery
Oklahoma Court of Appeals
733 P.2d 1357 (1986)
- Written by Mike Begovic, JD
Facts
Dr. James Price (plaintiff) was a tenured professor at the Oklahoma College of Osteopathic Medicine (OCOMS) (defendant). Price received a letter of employment each year from OCOMS that laid out the terms of employment and specified his salary. Price made a habit of signing such letters under protest, noting his objections and grievances on the letter. Such protest notes included criticisms of the administrative policies and procedures. In 1984 Price again included a protest note with his signed acceptance, this time expressing his dissatisfaction with the way his salary was calculated. Price received a reply from the president of OCOMS, John Barson, who informed Price that his response was being considered as nonacceptance and a voluntary decision to end his employment. Price wrote back seeking to clarify that he did wish to accept the offer of employment, but ultimately, OCOMS did not offer him employment. Price filed a lawsuit, seeking an order declaring that he had a legally binding contract with OCOMS and had to be reinstated for the upcoming year. A trial court ruled that Price’s note of protest amounted to a qualified acceptance and new offer for employment, which was not accepted by OCOMS. Price appealed, arguing that his note of protest did not qualify his acceptance of the original offer of employment.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Brightmire, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 797,000 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.