(Sarcasam removed)
Seattle Slew, please explain EXACTLY what distinguished a treatise from a hornbook?
Westestlaw does indeed make a 1 volume Hornbook on Corbins on contracts and you get a lot of bang for the buck with it, the price is roughly $90.00 versus the actual 15 volume treatise which is updated periodically with a price of $1,335.00. I suggest a lot of posters posting on this thread invest the $90.00 and read before they embarrass themselves more than they already have
Hornbook and other law school text are very good I’m not knocking them they are written primarily for a student audience and not used for citation in court generally; this does not negate their value or importance. They give an overview of a doctrinal area. The fact a Hornbook was crafted on a secondary source such as Corbins should show the value of the Corbins treatise.
Legal treatises provide well-organized, detailed and exhaustive explanations and analyses of individual legal topics, such as contracts, torts, property, and criminal law. A treatises may be a single volume, a multi-volume set, or a loose-leaf series, and may be updated with supplements, pocket parts, or inserted pages A legal treatise is a monograph or other writing about the law, rather than a transcript of actual laws or actual cases. To describe what legal treatises are, it is necessary to state what they are not: They are not trial transcripts, state documents, collections of laws, or judicial reports. They are secondary source materials that analyze and examine the law, usually a specific law or subject area, encompassing a range of analytical, theoretical, and practical literature.
Contract law for the most part remains virtually un-codified part of the body of common law which is why no one is going to be able to cite a statute that says "you can't breach a contract" - of course anyone can breach a contract, but there are consequences.
In every employment situation where there is a prior agreement to pay for work whether it be bonus pro-pay, or whatever you want to call it there is a contract, the contract is either written or oral. An oral contract has the same force and effect as a written contract, and is fully enforceable at law and equity. The poster of the original post clearly had been paid a particular bonus in the past, which was laid out in great detail, continued to work and then the boss cut the bonus and told him about it after he had finished the work. This is a modification of their agreement. Remedy is the benefit of the bargain or quantum meruit. The employer had previously (according to the post) modified performance:
postponing" the payout, which was scheduled to be a "bogey" of about 2% of your annual wages. To make us happy, they said they'd add it to this year's total. That may be legal however breaching the original terms and not paying at all is not legal under contract law.
Therefore the question before the court will be of performance of terms, not if there was a contract which the poster has clearly satisfied, and holds evidence to as well.
Spoilsport.