Can I back out of my job acceptance? Forum

[unc0mm0n1]

I probably could have phrased that more artfully, since there can still be a contract on other conditions, but what I meant was if an employment relationship is at-will, then there is no enforceable provision regarding termination of employment.

Not even a good faith provision? Isn't that an implied provision in all employment contracts, whether they are at-will or not?

[NYstate]

It's not illegal or a breach of contract or anything, all it will hurt is your professional reputation.

Sorry to get all legal nerd on you, bu how is it not breach of contract? It certainly is. He promised to work, in exchange for their promise to pay him. His decision not to work is failed performance and a breach. But it's an efficient breach and the firm couldnt really get any remedy.

I thought an offer letter was basically you accepting the terms of employment salary and benefits. It isn't an employment contract. Anyway it doesn't matter because he can quit at any time.

OP: does the offer letter say anything about you terminating the agreement? I would be surprised if it has anything more than a notice period, if that.

A letter is an offer. If OP confirms in writing its an enforceable agreement that he will work for $X for Y amount of time (assuming those terms are in the letter). But like I said, he can breach because they would have no remedy. They obviously won't like him any more, but I think OP understood that.

No, not really. It's more like a term sheet with no provision about length of employment.

[Void]

i don't think you understand how an efficient breach relates to damages, good sir.

eta: in general, you have no idea what you're talking about

I love this classic TLS "you're an idiot but I'm too badass to explain why" response.

an efficient breach does not preclude recovery for damages.

Never said it did. I said because there are no damages, breach is efficient.

[A. Nony Mouse]

I probably could have phrased that more artfully, since there can still be a contract on other conditions, but what I meant was if an employment relationship is at-will, then there is no enforceable provision regarding termination of employment.

Not even a good faith provision? Isn't that an implied provision in all employment contracts, whether they are at-will or not?

At will employment means that your employer can fire you at any point, for any reason, as long as it's not an illegal reason (race, sex, national origin, etc.). They can fire you if they don't like your tie or you don't bring them coffee in the morning. So I don't think good faith comes into it.

[Blessedassurance]

Never said it did. I said because there are no damages, breach is efficient.

He promised to work, in exchange for their promise to pay him. His decision not to work is failed performance and a breach. But it's an efficient breach and the firm couldnt really get any remedy.

Note the difference between the first quote and the bolded in the second quote. those are two different propositions.

See http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/efficient_breach

i didn't wanna get into it because it's irrelevant to the larger point that op can do whatever he/she wants. do you think op will have a cause of action if the firm rescinded his offer on economic grounds?

[Danger Zone]

I probably could have phrased that more artfully, since there can still be a contract on other conditions, but what I meant was if an employment relationship is at-will, then there is no enforceable provision regarding termination of employment.

Not even a good faith provision? Isn't that an implied provision in all employment contracts, whether they are at-will or not?

At will employment means that your employer can fire you at any point, for any reason, as long as it's not an illegal reason (race, sex, national origin, etc.). They can fire you if they don't like your tie or you don't bring them coffee in the morning. So I don't think good faith comes into it.

Good faith apparently matters to this type of dispute in a handful of states. Regardless, this is really not what the OP was looking to discuss, if I had to guess.

[homestyle28]

Did none of you contract nerds take employment law? It's called at-will employment, terminable by either party at any time. I'd bet your offer letter even specifically says you'll be an at-will employee. You're fine. K rules don't apply in employment law.

[EagleMe]

1. Have you contacted the firm you have an offer with and asked them to extend the deadline?
2. Have you contacted the firm you have an interview with and asked them if they can move your interview forward?

I would do either/both of those two things before I signed that paper.

Setting aside all the zaniness about efficient breaches and blah blah blah, ^ this. I would especially try to have the interview moved forward if at all possible. I don't really think it matters a whole lot if the offer is for at-will employment or not, you really don't want to be that guy who accepts an offer only to immediately back out. The legal community isn't all that large, and such actions can certainly have an adverse impact on your reputation.

[Anonymous User]

Some people were curious to what the offer says. At no point does it mention at-will employment. It basically says it's an offer for XXX amount, starting XXX month subject to some stuff (graduating, pre-employment checks), tells me which state bar I have to take, lays out benefits like bar stipend and moving expenses and then tells me how long the offer will be open for and tells me they hope I let them know as soon as possible. It doesn't say anything like this is binding or permanent. The more I look at it the more I agree with what everyone originally was saying that breaking this isn't a big deal.

[wiseowl]

My offer letter back in the day was pretty explicit that it was not a contract.

Regardless of this silly thread derailment, do what's best for you, OP. The hiring partner and the recruiting contact will be irritated for a few minutes and then you'll be forgotten. The "legal community is not that large" old wives' tale is ridiculous, particularly in different practice areas and different geographical regions.

Be careful though not to count chickens before they hatch.

[Anonymous User]

My offer letter back in the day was pretty explicit that it was not a contract.

Regardless of this silly thread derailment, do what's best for you, OP. The hiring partner and the recruiting contact will be irritated for a few minutes and then you'll be forgotten. The "legal community is not that large" old wives' tale is ridiculous, particularly in different practice areas and different geographical regions.

Be careful though not to count chickens before they hatch.

Exactly that's why no matter what, if they don't extend the deadline I'm accepting the offer. I just don't think it'll hurt me too much because I'll be in a different practice area in a different area. I'm sure the firm only looks out for themselves so I'll be doing the same thing.

[kalvano]

Some people were curious to what the offer says. At no point does it mention at-will employment. It basically says it's an offer for XXX amount, starting XXX month subject to some stuff (graduating, pre-employment checks), tells me which state bar I have to take, lays out benefits like bar stipend and moving expenses and then tells me how long the offer will be open for and tells me they hope I let them know as soon as possible. It doesn't say anything like this is binding or permanent. The more I look at it the more I agree with what everyone originally was saying that breaking this isn't a big deal.

That's because at-will employment cuts both ways. It's not an employment contract, it's the terms of employment with them if you choose to accept. Even by signing it, you're still at-will and can quit any time you like. All the offer is is the terms of employment should you choose to accept.

[Anonymous User]

Some people were curious to what the offer says. At no point does it mention at-will employment. It basically says it's an offer for XXX amount, starting XXX month subject to some stuff (graduating, pre-employment checks), tells me which state bar I have to take, lays out benefits like bar stipend and moving expenses and then tells me how long the offer will be open for and tells me they hope I let them know as soon as possible. It doesn't say anything like this is binding or permanent. The more I look at it the more I agree with what everyone originally was saying that breaking this isn't a big deal.

That's because at-will employment cuts both ways. It's not an employment contract, it's the terms of employment with them if you choose to accept. Even by signing it, you're still at-will and can quit any time you like. All the offer is is the terms of employment should you choose to accept.

Yeah I see that now. Thanks Kalvano and everyone else. I'll be accepting the offer terms if I don't get the extension and if I get my dream job I'll go there.

[Void]

Never said it did. I said because there are no damages, breach is efficient.

He promised to work, in exchange for their promise to pay him. His decision not to work is failed performance and a breach. But it's an efficient breach and the firm couldnt really get any remedy.

Note the difference between the first quote and the bolded in the second quote. those are two different propositions.

See http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/efficient_breach

i didn't wanna get into it because it's irrelevant to the larger point that op can do whatever he/she wants. do you think op will have a cause of action if the firm rescinded his offer on economic grounds?

I admit that I worded it poorly the first time, but I never meant that an efficient breach somehow means that an employer can collect damages. I meant what I said here:

Also, an efficient breach = when the benefit of breaching outweighs the cost of liability. Where liability is $0 and benefit is a job you'd prefer, breach is efficient.

But thanks so much for being such a dickwolf about it.

[Void]

K rules don't apply in employment law.

Yes, they do. http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/a ... tract.html

At-will employment is the norm, but if you have a contract specifying durational term you don't have at-will employment. That said, I wrongly assumed this was the situation here because my initial offer letter specified a one-year term.

Ok I've derailed this thread enough.

[Danger Zone]

But thanks so much for being such a dickwolf about it.

?

[Void]

But thanks so much for being such a dickwolf about it.

?

--ImageRemoved--