Warren v. Eli Research, Inc., April 28, 2008 (Diaz)(unpublished)
Inconsistent allegations in the Complaint doomed the claim for fraudulent inducement by one of the Plaintiffs in this case.
That Plaintiff, Hittle, alleged that the Defendant had promised her an annual salary of $150,000, guaranteed for 12 months, but that it had no intention of fulfilling this promise when made. The Defendant booted Hittle only a few months after she began employment.
What led to the granting of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss were Hittle’s allegations in the Complaint that she had begun her employment, worked for three months, been paid for that work, and that she was terminated for "financial reasons."
The Court held "it is patently inconsistent for Hittle to allege, on the one hand, that Defendant never intended to pay the wages promised, and on the other, that Defendant in fact performed in part and that it failed to complete performance for reasons unrelated to its intent." The Court held that partial performance of a contract demonstrates a party’s intention to fulfill the promise at the time it was made, undermining Hittle’s claim on its face.