Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contractbreach of contracttrialtestimony
contractbreach of contractappealtrialwillbench trial

Related Cases

Turner v. Shalberg, 70 S.W.3d 653
View Case »
La Trace v. Webster, 17 So.3d 1210, 67 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 78
View Case »
Denney v. Lovett, Not Reported in S.W.3d, 2006 WL 1915303
View Case »
Sunesis Trucking Co., Inc. v. Thistledown Racetrack, L.L.C., 22 N.E.3d 190, 2014-Ohio-3333
View Case »
Chris v. Epstein, 113 N.C.App. 751, 440 S.E.2d 581
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Tuomala v. Regent University, 252 Va. 368, 477 S.E.2d 501, 113 Ed. Law Rep. 1337

Facts

Three professors at Regent University filed suits to determine their rights under faculty contracts, alleging they were entitled to permanent tenured employment. They claimed that their contracts guaranteed annual renewal unless they breached the contract or their academic programs were discontinued. The trial court found that the contracts did not guarantee permanent tenure but provided financial security during the contract's duration. Evidence presented included testimony from university officials regarding the university's policies on tenure and the interpretation of the faculty handbook.

The suits were consolidated and the trial court heard evidence in a seven-day bench trial. The evidence showed that each of the three professors had signed a faculty contract for the 1993–94 academic year (faculty contracts). These contracts were signed by the president, the provost, and the dean of the respective school in which each professor taught.

Issue

Whether an employer's refusal to renew an employment contract under its original terms constituted a breach of contract.

The primary issue in this appeal is whether an employer's refusal to renew an employment contract under its original terms constituted a breach of contract.

Rule

The language of a contract is ambiguous when it can be understood in more than one way, and parol evidence is admissible to establish the real contract between the parties.

We hold that the language of the faculty contracts is ambiguous. 'An ambiguity exists when language admits of being understood in more than one way or refers to two or more things at the same time.'

Analysis

The court found the language of the faculty contracts ambiguous, as it was unclear whether the professors were entitled to renewal of identical contracts or new contracts. The trial court's admission of parol evidence was deemed appropriate to determine the parties' intentions, and the evidence supported the conclusion that the contracts did not provide for permanent tenured employment.

The evidence showed that only the Board has the authority to set Regent's policy. M.G. Robertson, Adelia Robertson, and Gyertson all testified that the Board had opposed the concept of permanent tenured employment throughout Regent's history and had been unaware until late 1993 that any Regent employee had made contrary representations concerning Regent's policy.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the trial court's ruling that the contracts did not provide permanent tenured employment and that Regent was not obligated to renew the contracts under identical terms.

For these reasons, we will affirm the trial court's judgment.

Who won?

Regent University prevailed in the case because the court found that the faculty contracts did not guarantee permanent tenure and that the university's policies were upheld.

The court ruled that Regent was bound to honor the remaining two years of the three-year faculty contracts, but that Regent was not under any obligation to renew the contracts under identical terms.

You must be