The plaintiff, who was known to be acting in the capacity of a ‘lace-buyer’ was engaged by the defendant, a lace-dealer, under the following memorandum: ‘M agrees to engage P. for the term of three years from Monday the 15th of August, 1859, at the yearly salary of 500l payable monthly. P. to give the whole of his services, and to be advised and guided by M if necessary’ In an action by P. against M. for a wrongful dismissal pending the term on the alleged ground of disobedience of lawful orders
Held: that evidence was admissible to show the capacity in which the plaintiff was engaged, viz. as ‘lace-buyer’ ; and that it was properly left to the jury to say whether or not the orders which he was alleged to have disobeyed were such as a person in that position was bound to obey.
The general rule is that a contract by which a person is employed in a specific character is to be construed as obliging him to render, not indeed all service that may be thought reasonable, but such service only as properly appertains to that character.
Judges:
Erle CJ, Williams, Byles and Keating JJ
Citations:
[1862] EngR 136, (1862) 11 CB NS 508, (1862) 142 ER 895
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Price v Mouatt 1861
On a contract in writing, within the statute, in general terms for the employment of the plaintiff. Held, that it might be shown by parol, that he was employed in a particular capacity ; and, as a question whether he had wilfully disobeyed a lawful . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment, Contract
Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.286302
