Marshall Durbin Food Cop. V. Baker Mississippi Court of Appeals 2005 1) Facts a) Mr. Baker began working for Marshall Durbin food Corp. in 1965 b) After a troubled time in the company Mr. Baker became nervous about his future employment c) Mr. Baker and Mr. Durbin entered into an agreement that gave Mr. Baker the right to retire with benefits if he remained with the company until then d) The contract stated that Mr. Baker would receive monthly salary for five years after the initiation of contract from one of the clauses e) When Mr. Durbin became sick and was rendered incompetent by a doctor, Mr. Bakers contract began f) A few days after notifying the new president of the company about the contract, the company contacted him to announce they were terminating the agreement and his employment g) Mr. Baker filed a suit against the company for specific performance of the contract 2) Procedural History a) Parties i) Mr. Baker (1) Plaintiff ii) Marshal Durbin Food Corp. (1) Defendant b) Claims i) Breach of contract by the defendants ii) No contract due to lack of consideration by plaintiff c) History i) Bill Baker filed suit against M.D.F ii) The trial court ruled in favor of plaintiff iii) M.D.F appealed iv) Court of Appeals affirm in part and reverse/render in part 3) Issues a) Was there an error on the part of trial court to rule for consideration as matter of law i) Holding: When a sum of money is paid to the agency for consideration, the act will stand as consideration b) Were the promises made by Mr. Baker and company mutually illusory i) Holding: The act was not illusory because by Mr. Baker continuing to act in the manner stated with the contract then he was assigning consideration by act. ii) The promise was contingent not illusory. c) No consideration or forbearance on the part of Mr. baker. i) Holding: When a person elects to not seek a more advantageous position but continue working for a suffering company that constitutes a consideration. Company benefits from having good workers while Mr. Baker worked at a failing company that had no guarantee of succeeding. 4) Judgment: Affirm the trial court decision and reverse the start date of the contract to one month earlier.