Legal Opinion
Seifert v. Arnold Bros.
California Court of Appeal
Decided April 26, 1934No. Civ. No. 4994PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtPullen, P. J.
Plaintiff entered into a conditional sales contract to buy an automobile from appellant, and in consideration of the purchase thereof by plaintiff, defendant agreed to give plaintiff employment as evidenced by a letter as follows:
“ ... In consideration of your purchasing an Essex Coupe we are offering you employment at the rate of $80 per month. This employment is to be steady as long as your services are satisfactory.
“Tours very truly,
“Arnold Bros., Inc.,
“By H. D. Arnold.”
Plaintiff was given employment for approximately three months in the used car department of defendant and was then…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Lord v. GoldbergCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Boehm v. SpreckelsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
- Harrington v. Kansas City Cable Railway Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1895
- Tiffany v. Pacific Sewer Pipe Co.California Supreme Court · 1919
- Yellow Poplar Lumber Co. v. RuleCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1899
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Speegle v. Board of Fire UnderwritersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946
- Norfolk Southern Railway Co. v. HarrisSupreme Court of Virginia · 1950
- J. C. Millett Co. v. Park & Tilford Distillers Corp.District Court, N.D. California · 1954
- Brawthen v. H & R BLOCK, INC.California Court of Appeal · 1972
- Millsap v. National Funding Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1943
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.