Cantu Vs. Central Education
Name of case: Cantu v. Central Education Agency
Court: Court of Appeals Houston, Texas.
Citation: 844 S. W. 2d 565 (Tex. App. 1994)
Parties and their roles: San Benito Consolidated Independent School District (defendant); Maria Cantu (plaintiff).
Facts: During the 1990-91 school year Cantu was under a one-year contract to teach at the San Benito Consolidated Independent School District. On August 17, Cantu wrote a resignation letter. On August 18 Cantu hand-delivered the letter to her supervisor, requesting for the final paycheck to be sent to an address fifty miles away from the San Benito office. On August 20 the San Benito superintendent of schools (only person allowed to accept resignations on behalf of the district) received the letter and deposited the acceptance letter for the resignation the same day. On August 21, the superintendent’s office hand-received from Cantu a letter withdrawing her resignation, that bore a local address. The same day (August 21st) Cantu received a hand-delivered copy of the email sent on August 20, accepting her resignation but rejecting her withdrawal. Cantu claimed breach of her employment contract.
Issues: Under the “mail box rule”, does mail count as an authorized method of acceptance despite the fact of hand-delivery and no clear statement of acceptance method?
Lower court decision: The Commissioner of education and distruct court assessed that the employment contract was terminated as of the moment when the superintendent deposited the acceptance letter for Cantu’s resignation in the mail. Cantu appealed.
Decision: Trial Court decision affirmed. The employment contract was terminated upon mailing of acceptance letter. Judgment affirmed.
Reasoning: The Restatement was applied by the court and states that in the absence of any indication of method of delivery, an acceptance by any medium reasonable under the circumstances is effective on dispatch. Furthermore, since parties are negotiating at a distance, acceptance
Court: Court of Appeals Houston, Texas.
Citation: 844 S. W. 2d 565 (Tex. App. 1994)
Parties and their roles: San Benito Consolidated Independent School District (defendant); Maria Cantu (plaintiff).
Facts: During the 1990-91 school year Cantu was under a one-year contract to teach at the San Benito Consolidated Independent School District. On August 17, Cantu wrote a resignation letter. On August 18 Cantu hand-delivered the letter to her supervisor, requesting for the final paycheck to be sent to an address fifty miles away from the San Benito office. On August 20 the San Benito superintendent of schools (only person allowed to accept resignations on behalf of the district) received the letter and deposited the acceptance letter for the resignation the same day. On August 21, the superintendent’s office hand-received from Cantu a letter withdrawing her resignation, that bore a local address. The same day (August 21st) Cantu received a hand-delivered copy of the email sent on August 20, accepting her resignation but rejecting her withdrawal. Cantu claimed breach of her employment contract.
Issues: Under the “mail box rule”, does mail count as an authorized method of acceptance despite the fact of hand-delivery and no clear statement of acceptance method?
Lower court decision: The Commissioner of education and distruct court assessed that the employment contract was terminated as of the moment when the superintendent deposited the acceptance letter for Cantu’s resignation in the mail. Cantu appealed.
Decision: Trial Court decision affirmed. The employment contract was terminated upon mailing of acceptance letter. Judgment affirmed.
Reasoning: The Restatement was applied by the court and states that in the absence of any indication of method of delivery, an acceptance by any medium reasonable under the circumstances is effective on dispatch. Furthermore, since parties are negotiating at a distance, acceptance