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 order, held, that it was for the jury whether the order was within the scope of that employment and whether, even if so, the disobedience was ‘wilful.’
Judges:
Erle CJ
Citations:
[1861] EngR 72, (1861) 2 F and F 529, (1861) 175 ER 1173
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
See Also – Price v Mouat 1862
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.283832