Spoljaric v. Percival Tours, Inc.
Texas Supreme Court
708 S.W.2d 432 (1986)

- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
Ralph Spoljaric (plaintiff) and Percival Tours, Inc. (Percival) (defendant) entered a two-year employment agreement. Upon the expiration of the agreement, Spoljaric began negotiating for a new agreement. Jessie Upchurch, the president of Percival, would not offer Spoljaric another written employment agreement. However, Upchurch offered Spoljaric a bonus of 5 percent on any improvement in the company’s business and told Spoljaric to draft a written bonus plan to that effect. Spoljaric did, and Upchurch told his secretary to redraft certain parts of the draft agreement. It is not clear whether Spoljaric ever saw an amended bonus plan. Over the next several months, Spoljaric asked Upchurch about the bonus plan, and Upchurch stated that his lawyers were reviewing it. Later that year, Percival bought two other companies, taking on a new chief operating officer (COO), a job that was basically Spoljaric’s before the merger. Spoljaric talked to Upchurch and the new COO about the original bonus plan that Spoljaric had drafted. Upchurch stated that he was not going to sign it. Spoljaric sued Percival and Upchurch for fraudulent misrepresentation. The jury found in favor of Spoljaric. The court of appeals reversed, finding no evidence that Upchurch did not intend to set up a bonus plan for Spoljaric when he first said that he would. Spoljaric appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (McGee, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

