Skebba v. Kasch
Wisconsin Court of Appeals
297 Wis. 2d 401 (2006)
- Written by Tanya Munson, JD
Facts
William Skebba (plaintiff) had worked for Jeffrey Kasch (defendant) at M.W. Kasch Co. for many years. Skebba worked his way up from salesperson to vice president of sales. In 1993, M.W. Kasch Co. experienced serious financial problems. Skebba was approached by another company that offered Skebba a position if he left M.W. Kasch Co. Skebba approached Kasch and informed Kasch that he was going to accept the new opportunity. Skebba’s departure would have been viewed negatively within the industry, so Kasch asked what it would take to get Skebba to stay. Skebba responded that he needed security and that he would stay if Kasch agreed to pay him $250,000 if the company was sold, if Skebba was terminated, or if Skebba retired. Kasch agreed to the proposal and promised to have the agreement drawn up. Skebba turned down the other company’s offer and stayed with M.W. Kasch Co. In 1999, Kasch sold the business. Upon the sale, Skebba requested the $250,000 Kasch had promised him. Kasch refused and denied having ever made such a promise. Kasch gave Skebba a standard severance agreement instead. Skebba sued and alleged a breach of contract and promissory estoppel. The jury found that there was no contract but that Kasch had made a promise and Skebba foreseeably relied on the promise to his detriment of $250,000. The trial court struck down the jury’s answer on damages and instead found that Skebba had not proved his damages because he did not prove what he would have earned if he took the other job and thus did not establish what he had lost by relying on Kasch’s promise. Skebba appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Kessler, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 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.