Thanks for the info.
The reason the job is a "nightmare" is because of all the "extra"
duties and classes the admonistration mentioned I would be
teaching. Not only would I be responsible for 3 different levels
of a core subjects(which I did know), but I would be responsible
for two electives and other duties (fundraising, lots of
assessments, extra recordkeeping, supervision duties, etc.).
I reread the letter, and I do believe (from the info you gave me)
that this is not binding without signing other documents (it also
mentions that this is "at will" employment)...Unfortunately, my
family depends on this income(even if it is a lot less than what
I would be making in the public school) and benefits, so I am
stuggling with calling to let this job go since I don't know if I
can get another before the school year begins. I just know that
this job is going to be TONS of work for very little pay-and
absolutely NO job security.
On 7/16/08, Think you're smart wrote:
> I found this at www.ivanhoffman.com. Looks like the letter of
> intent is not a binding contract maybe.
> In order to be a valid and enforceable agreement, a document
> must contain certain essential legal provisions and must not
> leave either undecided or to be determined at some time in the
> future any aspect of such essential legal provisions. If these
> essential elements are not present, then the document is not a
> binding one and is often referred to by courts as an “agreement
> to agree” or a letter of intent, both of which are not
> enforceable as contracts.
> Parties to a transaction sometimes intentionally create
> a letter of intent as an expression of what they intend to
> agree upon should certain circumstances arise. The document
> may even be made expressly non-binding until such other
> circumstances do in fact arise but even if there is no express
> statement to that non-binding effect, the document will not be
> binding and thus not enforceable until those circumstances
> arise. Thus, the letter of intent is essentially a legally
> worthless document. It is not clear to me the reason any party
> would ever bother to create such a document and yet I have seen
> it used on many occasions. If parties to a transaction intend
> to bind each other, then they should create a binding contract,
> not a letter of intent. If the parties to a transaction do not
> intend to bind each other, then why bother creating a document
> that is not binding?
> However, sometimes one of the parties prepares a
> document believing it to be a valid and enforceable agreement
> only to find, after expensive litigation, that it was not a
> binding agreement at all but merely a non-binding, non-
> enforceable agreement to agree, letter of intent.
Posts on this thread, including this one