Stewart Vs. Jackson and Nash

Stewart v. Jackson & Nash

In the case of Stewart v. Jackson & Nash, Ms. Stewart was an attorney that was fired from the New York law firm of Jackson & Nash in 1990. Previously before taking the job at Jackson and Nash, Ms. Stewart had worked in the environmental law department of another New York law firm. A partner for Jackson and Nash contacted Stewart to offer a job to her.

Ms. Stewart claimed that during an interview, the Jackson & Nash partner stated that the firm had just secured a major environmental client and that Ms. Stewart would head the new environmental department, so Ms. Stewart left her existing practice and began work as an associate with Jackson & Nash. After she started working at the firm, there was little environmental work as well as no major environmental client. Ms. Stewart was then put to work on general litigation matters. She worked outside her chosen specialty for two years. In 1990, she was terminated. Ms Stewart filed a lawsuit against Jackson & Nash in federal court alleging that she was fraudulently induced into leaving her previous employer and accepting a position with the firm (Walsh, 2010).

The legal issue in the case is that Stewart filed a complaint against her employers Jackson and Nash for fraud. She was lured into accepting a position as the head of Jackson & Nash's environmental law department that was never fulfilled. After 2 years with the firm her contract ended. The courts dismissed Ms. Stewart's allegations terming it as a breach of contract rather than fraud (Walsh, 2010). According to the Distract Court, Ms. Stewart's charge was useless as it entailed facts arising from her termination. In the contract of Ms. Stewart, it stated about termination of employees at-will, which is termination for any reason or no reason at all deemed necessary by the employer. The fraud claim satisfied in this case is that Jackson & Nash's falsely represented a position in its firm of a environmental department that was not true. The statement made was intended that Ms. Stewart rely on becoming the head associate of Jackson & Nash's environmental law department which is false representation that caused Ms. Stewart to accept the position.

In the case, the court highlights fraud as the intentional misrepresentation of present facts, with an aim of making the other person to rely on the false information to act. A breach of contract however comes in where a prospective business partner violates their promissory statements as to what happens in the future (Walsh, 2010, p. 123). Stewart's claims falls under a breach of contract, since the Jackson & Nash lied about a position in order for her to accept. I believe Herzog make the statements to Stewart as incentives for Stewart to take the job.

Sigal Construction v. Stanbury