I. Richard Green v. Kaynar Manufacturing Co., Inc., Etc.

In December, 1962, by written contract, the Kaynar Company hired Green to set up a new products division for it in California. Green is a citizen of Illinois and Kaynar is a California corporation.

Within two months, and before Green could get his family moved to California, Kaynar became dissatisfied with its new executive. From that point forward, the evidence is sharply in dispute. Kaynar insists it tried to negotiate a termination but did not discharge Green. The latter says, “Nonsense, I was fired.”

Green, after some negotiation, filed this diversity action. The trial court ruled for ' Kaynar. It reasoned that Green’s testimony and his letters showed that the contract was terminated and that Green’s arguments with Kaynar after the first clash with the company, wherein he contended for a new contract with some guarantees against another discharge, proved it. The court found it unnecessary to decide whether Green was discharged or, if discharged, whether the discharge was wrongful. It projected its final decision on the basis that it assumed, without deciding, that Green was wrongfully discharged. (Kaynar did not plead that Green was discharged for cause, but an issue of…

(dissenting):

I dissent. The district judge heard the testimony of the appellant and observed the manner in which he gave it. He then found that appellant, after having conferred with appellee “relative to a mutual termination of [his] said employment * * * by his acts, acquiesced in, and consented to the termination of the Agreement of Employment * * * ” I do not say that the Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law should not have been more finely drawn. To me, however, they reveal a simple determination that both parties became disenchanted with prospects under the Agreement of Employment and, quite quickly, mutually agreed to rescind it. This factual determination should not, in my opinion, be disturbed. Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a). I would affirm.

369 F.2d 375 I. Richard GREEN, Appellant, v. KAYNAR MANUFACTURING CO., Inc., etc., Appellee. No. 19966. United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit. November 21, 1966. Morton R. Goodman, Beverly Hills, Cal., for appellant. Charles W. Wolfe, of Larwill & Wolfe, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee. Before CHAMBERS and ELY, Circuit Judges, and TAVARES, District Judge. CHAMBERS, Circuit Judge: 1 In December, 1962, by written contract, the Kaynar Company hired Green to set up a new products division for it in California. Green is a citizen of Illinois and Kaynar is a California corporation. 2 Within two months, and before Green could get his family moved to California, Kaynar became dissatisfied with its new executive. From that point forward, the evidence is sharply in dispute. Kaynar insists it tried to negotiate a termination but did not discharge Green. The latter says, "Nonsense, I was fired." 3 Green, after some negotiation, filed this diversity action. The trial court ruled for Kaynar. It reasoned that Green's testimony and his letters showed that the contract was terminated and that Green's arguments with Kaynar after the first clash with the company, wherein he contended for…