{ "id": 3440970, "name": "DENNIS A. DAVISON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF CARL SANDBURG COLLEGE, DISTRICT No. 518, Defendant-Appellee", "name_abbreviation": "Davison v. Board of Trustees", "decision_date": "1985-03-22", "docket_number": "No. 3\u201484\u20140426", "first_page": "980", "last_page": "983", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "132 Ill. App. 3d 980" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "220 Ill. 106", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 3345567 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/220/0106-01" ] }, { "cite": "155 F.2d 257", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 1139291 ], "year": 1906, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/155/0257-01" ] }, { "cite": "345 N.E.2d 493", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "63 Ill. 2d 128", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5426498 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/63/0128-01" ] }, { "cite": "155 F.2d 257", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 1139291 ], "year": 1906, "opinion_index": 2, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/155/0257-01" ] }, { "cite": "345 N.E.2d 493", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 2 }, { "cite": "63 Ill. 2d 128", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5426498 ], "opinion_index": 2, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/63/0128-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 448, "char_count": 8224, "ocr_confidence": 0.762, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.870779315193373e-08, "percentile": 0.41833018063987515 }, "sha256": "81b444c13c9d6f7d0e1136704f7887cf73dfa4b58f8b1ed6ec4f56e8f30d809d", "simhash": "1:9bd9b6342233863a", "word_count": 1344 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:48:37.184543+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "DENNIS A. DAVISON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF CARL SANDBURG COLLEGE, DISTRICT No. 518, Defendant-Appellee." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "PRESIDING JUSTICE HEIPLE\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe plaintiff-appellant, Dennis A. Davison, brought suit against the defendant-appellee, board of trustees of Carl Sandburg College, District No. 518 (hereafter the college), to recover damages for the alleged breach of the plaintiff\u2019s employment contract. After a bench trial, judgment was entered for the defendant, and this appeal followed. We affirm.\nWe note at this point that no appellee\u2019s brief has been submitted by the college. It is well established, however, that where the record is simple and the court of review can easily decide the disputed errors without an appellee\u2019s brief, the reviewing court may decide the merits of the appeal. First Capitol Mortgage Corp. v. Talandis Construction Corp. (1976), 63 Ill. 2d 128, 345 N.E.2d 493.\nThe underlying facts of this case are not in dispute. Davison was a full-time instructor at the college during the 1982-1983 academic year. In January of 1983, Davison and the college agreed that he would teach summer school that year. At the time the parties made that agreement, each understood that Davison would be paid at the rate for a full-time instructor.\nIn February 1983, Davison was denied tenure by the college. He was offered, however, a one-year probationary contract for the 1983-1984 school year. In April 1983, Davison informed the college through his supervisor and the board of trustees that he would resign. His resignation was accepted, and Davison\u2019s written contract of employment terminated by its terms on May 25,1983.\nDavison\u2019s summer employment was, therefore, not governed by the written contract. Instead, the contract for the summer employment was the oral agreement reached between the parties in January 1983. The terms of that contract indicated that Davison would be paid at the full-time rate.\nAfter Davison tendered his resignation, the dean of students determined that his rate of pay for summer employment would be that of a part-time instructor. Davison was informed of this decision in late April or early May 1983. At that time, he objected to being paid at the part-time rate. The day before the summer term began, Davison\u2019s supervisor inquired as to whether he was going to teach summer school. Davison then said that he would teach.\nDavison taught 12 hours of class during summer school. He was paid for that work at the part-time rate. The difference between his salary at the full-time rate and at the part-time rate was $1,200.\nAfter receiving his first payment check for the summer work, he instituted a grievance proceeding against the college to obtain the higher full-time rate of pay. In addition, when Davison received checks from the college during the summer, he endorsed them on the back with the following language or words to this effect:\n\u201cMy endorsement on this instrument does not imply my agreement that the amount is all that is due to me at this time.\u201d\nThe college refused Davison\u2019s grievance. The plaintiff then filed the instant action.\nThe trial court entered judgment in favor of the college, stating that the college had sought to modify the oral summer employment contract it had made with Davison so as to pay the part-time instructor rate. The trial court further held that such a modification would ordinarily be a nudum pactum because it was done without consideration, thereby giving the party against whom the change was sought the right to repudiate the modification and claim the full amount speciiied in the original contract. The trial court found, however, that one may waive performance of the original agreement and ratify the modified contract. If this is done and the party fully performs and accepts the benefit of the new agreement, he cannot later repudiate it and sue for the difference. Although Davison was under no obligation to teach summer school at the part-time rate, the court concluded that once he fulfilled his part-time teaching contract, he could not repudiate the modified contract and recover the full-time rate of pay.\nWe believe this view is essentially correct. The dean\u2019s actions amounted to an offer to modify an executory agreement. By carrying the modified contract into effect and accepting its benefits, Davison ratified the new agreement and waived performance of the original contract. Hines v. Ward Baking Co. (7th Cir. 1946), 155 F.2d 257; Snow v. Griesheimer (1906), 220 Ill. 106.\nDavison contends that the Hines rationale is inapposite because there is no evidence here to indicate that he agreed to accept the terms of the modified contract before performance. Davison\u2019s actions prove otherwise.\nPrior to the commencement of summer classes, Davison was asked by his supervisor whether he was going to teach. Although he never expressly agreed to work at the part-time rate, Davison was fully aware of the pay scale offered by the dean and responded without qualification that he would teach. Davison later changed his mind and protested after receiving his first paycheck, but he nonetheless completed the contract as modified. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Knox County.\nAffirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "PRESIDING JUSTICE HEIPLE" }, { "text": "SCOTT, J.,\nconcurs.", "type": "concurrence", "author": "SCOTT, J.," }, { "text": "JUSTICE STOUDER,\ndissenting:\nI respectfully disagree with the reasoning and result reached by my colleagues. Only an appellant\u2019s brief was filed in this case; therefore, the appellant, Dennis Davison, has the burden of overcoming the presumption of propriety of the trial court decision. (First Capitol Mortgage Corp. v. Talandis Construction Corp. (1976), 63 Ill. 2d 128, 345 N.E.2d 493.) In my opinion, Davison has successfully met this burden by indicating that the law relied upon by the trial court was inapplicable to the facts of this case.\nThe majority and the trial court rely on Hines v. Ward Baking Co. (7th Cir. 1946), 155 F.2d 257, as dispositive of this case. Each rely on a general principle applied to facts substantially and legally different from those in the present case. In Hines, the plaintiff was employed under a five-year written employment contract. After two years, he agreed to a 10% reduction in salary for the remainder of the contract period. His agreement to the modification was in writing, which also provided that he could submit to the company a recommendation for a partial or complete restoration of his salary to the rate specified in the original contract. For the duration of the contract, he received and retained the lesser salary. Later, he sought recovery of the difference; however, the trial court ruled against him and the appellate court agreed, holding that if parties proceed to execute fully the modified agreement so that nothing remains to be done by either party and the agreement is no longer executory, the contract as executed will not be disturbed.\nIn the present case, Davison did not agree to the college\u2019s unilateral modification of the oral employment contract. Further, his conduct in no way evinced acceptance, either tacit or otherwise, of the terms, as suggested by the majority. Davison never agreed to teach at the part-time rate. He instituted a grievance proceeding against the college, and he also endorsed the paychecks he received with language to the effect that his endorsement did not imply an agreement to the modification.\nIf the majority\u2019s theory is correct, namely, Davison\u2019s only cause of action was for breach of contract at the time the college indicated it did not intend to perform its obligation by paying Davison at the full-time teachers rate, we would reach the result that the college would be obligated to pay in full for the summer school term at the higher rate, but only if Davison did not teach. Clearly such a result is not reasonable, and the college would be the first to complain about the inequities of such a result.\nI would reverse the decision of the trial court and enter judgment for Davison.", "type": "dissent", "author": "JUSTICE STOUDER," } ], "attorneys": [ "Timothy L. Bertschy, of Heyl, Royster, Voelker & Allen, of Peoria, for appellant.", "No brief filed for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "DENNIS A. DAVISON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF CARL SANDBURG COLLEGE, DISTRICT No. 518, Defendant-Appellee.\nThird District\nNo. 3\u201484\u20140426\nOpinion filed March 22, 1985.\nModified on denial of rehearing June 4,1985.\nSTOUDER, J., dissenting.\nTimothy L. Bertschy, of Heyl, Royster, Voelker & Allen, of Peoria, for appellant.\nNo brief filed for appellee." }, "file_name": "0980-01", "first_page_order": 1002, "last_page_order": 1005 }