Valentine v. General American Credit, Inc., Docket No. 71309

• Court: Supreme Court of Michigan
• Writing for the Court: LEVIN; WILLIAMS
• Citation: 362 N.W.2d 628,118 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3333,420 Mich. 256
• Parties: Sharon VALENTINE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GENERAL AMERICAN CREDIT, INC., Defendant-Appellant. ct. Term 1984. Calendar420 Mich. 256, 362 N.W.2d 628, 118 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3333, 53 U.S.L.W. 2370, 1 Indiv.Empl.Rts.Cas. (BNA) 1811
• Decision Date: 28 December 1984
• Docket Number: O,No. 2,Docket No. 71309

Page 628

362 N.W.2d 628 Sharon VALENTINE, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
GENERAL AMERICAN CREDIT, INC., Defendant-Appellant. Docket No. 71309, Oct. Term 1984.
Calendar No. 2.
420 Mich. 256, 362 N.W.2d 628, 118 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3333,
53 U.S.L.W. 2370, 1 Indiv.Empl.Rts.Cas. (BNA) 1811 Supreme Court of Michigan. Argued Oct. 2, 1984.
Decided Dec. 28, 1984.

[420 MICH 257] Law Offices of Joseph A. Golden by Joseph A. Golden, Patricia A. Stamler, Southfield, for plaintiff-appellant.

Garan, Lucow, Miller, Seward, Cooper & Becker, P.C. by Milton Lucow, Detroit, for defendant-appellee; Gromek, Bendure & Thomas by Daniel J. Wright, Detroit, of counsel.

The Fishman Group, Steven J. Fishman, Malcolm D. Brown, Bloomfield Hills, for amicus curiae Mich. State Chamber of Commerce.

Stark & Gordon, Detroit, for amicus curiae MTLA.

LEVIN, Justice.

Sharon Valentine seeks to recover mental distress damages arising out of the alleged breach of an employment contract. Valentine claims that, under the contract, she was entitled to [420 MICH 258] job security and the peace of mind that is associated with job security. Because an employment contract providing for job security has a personal element, and breach of such a contract can be expected to result in mental distress, Valentine argues that she should be able to recover mental distress damages. She also asks for exemplary damages.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court dismissing the claims for mental distress and exemplary damages. ¹ We affirm.

Page 629

I

In Toussaint v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Michigan, 408 Mich. 579, 292 N.W.2d 880 (1980), this Court held that an employment contract providing that an employee would not be terminated except for cause was enforceable although no definite term of employment was stated.

Toussaint makes employment contracts which provide that an employee will not be dismissed except for cause enforceable in the same manner as other contracts. It did not recognize employment as a fundamental right or create a new "special" right. The only right held in Toussaint to be enforceable was the right that arose out of the promise not to terminate except for cause.

Employers and employees remain free to provide, or not to provide, for job security. Absent a contractual provision for job security, either the employer or the employee may ordinarily terminate[420 MICH 259] an employment contract at any time for any, or no, reason. ² The obligation which gave rise to this action is based on the agreement of the parties; ³ it is not an obligation imposed on the employer by law. This is an action for breach of contract and not a tort action.

II

Valentine may not recover mental distress damages for breach of the employment contract, although such damages may have been foreseeable and she might not be "made whole" absent an award of mental distress damages.

Valentine relies on the rule of Hadley v. Baxendale, 9 Exch. 341, 156 Eng.Rep. 145 (1854), which provides that damages recoverable for a breach of contract are those that "may fairly and reasonably be considered either arising naturally, i.e., according to the usual course of things, from such breach of contract itself, or such as may reasonably be supposed to have been in the contemplation of both parties at the time they made the contract, as the probable result of the breach of it." ⁴

Although courts frequently begin analysis with a reference to the rule stated in Hadley v. Baxendale, ⁵ that rule has not been applied scrupulously. As stated by Professor Dobbs in his treatise on [420 MICH 260] remedies, a "difficulty in the Hadley type case is that the test of foreseeability [i.e., whether damages 'arise naturally' ⁶] has little or no meaning. The idea is so readily subject to expansion or contraction that it becomes in fact merely a technical way in which the judges can state their conclusion." ⁷

Under the rule of Hadley v. Baxendale, literally applied, damages for mental distress would be recoverable for virtually every breach of contract. Professor Dobbs said:

"When a defendant breaches a contract, this may and often does cause pecuniary loss to the other party, at least temporarily. It is a common experience

Page 630

of mankind that pecuniary loss almost invariably causes some form and degree of mental distress." ⁸

In Stewart v. Rudner, 349 Mich. 459, 470, 84 N.W.2d 816 (1957), this Court said that "all breaches of contract do more or less" cause "vexation and annoyance"; similarly, see Kewin v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Ins. Co., 409 Mich. 401, 417, 295 N.W.2d 50 (1980). ⁹

Yet the general rule, with few exceptions, is to "uniformly den[y]" recovery for mental distress damages although they are "foreseeable within the rule of Hadley v. Baxendale." ¹⁰ The rule barring recovery of mental distress damages--a gloss on the generality of the rule stated in Hadley v. [420 MICH 261] Baxendale --is fully applicable to an action for breach of an employment contract. ¹¹

The denial of mental distress damages, although the result is to leave the plaintiff with less than a full recovery, has analogy in the law. The law does not generally compensate for all losses suffered. ¹² Recovery is denied for attorney's fees, ¹³ for mental anguish not accompanied by physical manifestation, ¹⁴ and "make-whole" or full recovery has been denied where the cost of performance exceeds the value to the promisee. ¹⁵ The courts have not, despite "make whole" generalizations regarding the damages recoverable, ¹⁶ attempted to provide compensation for all losses. Instead, specific rules have been established that provide for the calculation of the damages recoverable in particular kinds of actions. ¹⁷ In contract actions, the market price is the general standard. ¹⁸

In determining what damages are recoverable, the courts of this state have qualified the general [420 MICH 262]...