KSt. Louis Court of Appeals, Missouri, 1959draftborradorunverifiedsin verificar

Feinberg v. Pfeiffer Co.

322 S.W.2d 163 (Mo. Ct. App. 1959)

A pension promised for life after thirty-seven years, honored until new management arrived

In one lineEn una línea: A pension promise lacks consideration when past service is not bargained for, but the employee's reliance by retiring makes the promise enforceable under promissory estoppel.Una promesa de pensión carece de consideration cuando el servicio pasado no fue el precio, pero la confianza de la empleada al retirarse la hace exigible por promissory estoppel.
RuleRegla: A promise which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance of a definite and substantial character on the part of the promisee, and which does induce it, is binding if injustice can be avoided only by enforcement (R.1 § 90); past services and a retirement the promisor did not request are not consideration.
Why this case is herePor qué está aquí este caso: The promissory estoppel case assigned Sept. 29 (casebook Section 4, pp. 120–130) with R.2d § 90: past service is not consideration and retiring was not bargained for, but reliance on the promise (retiring, then becoming unemployable through illness) makes it enforceable.
Procedural posturePostura procesal: A retired employee sued her former employer when it stopped paying a promised lifetime pension; judgment for the employee, affirmed.

Facts

Anna Feinberg worked for Pfeiffer for thirty-seven years. The board adopted a resolution raising her salary and promising $200 a month for life whenever she chose to retire, in recognition of her service. She kept working for a year and a half, then retired at fifty-seven and received the payments for several years. After the president died, new management questioned the arrangement and stopped paying. By then she had cancer and could not work.

Procedural posture

She sued for the unpaid installments; judgment for her; affirmed.

Issue

Whether the promise was supported by consideration and, if not, whether it was enforceable under promissory estoppel.

Holding

No consideration, but enforceable under § 90 of the Restatement because she relied on the promise by retiring and the company should have expected that reliance.

Reasoning

Past service cannot be consideration for a later promise, and the company asked nothing further of her; continuing to work was not required and retiring was her choice. But the promise was made to induce exactly that choice, she made it, and injustice could be avoided only by enforcement, given her age and health.

Rule (own words)

Gratitude for the past is not a bargain; a promise that leads someone to quit her job is enforceable anyway if she relied on it and cannot go back.

What-ifs

The resolution had said: we will pay the pension if you keep working two more years. Bargain; consideration; no need for estoppel.
She retired for reasons unrelated to the promise and could easily have found other work: reliance not substantial; § 90 may fail.
The promise was oral and made by a manager without authority: agency and statute of frauds questions, but § 90 does not require a writing.

Likely follow-upsRepreguntas probables

Why was there no consideration?

Her thirty-seven years were past; the resolution did not require her to keep working or to retire; she could have stayed or left. Nothing was exchanged for the promise.

What was the reliance?

She retired at a time she might have kept working, and by the time payments stopped she was ill and could not work; the court found she had changed position in reliance and could not be restored.

What damages?

The promised payments; the court enforced the promise itself, not merely her reliance loss.

promissory estoppel consideration reliance (detrimental)past consideration

Compare withComparar con: Ricketts v. Scothorn (extends), Hamer v. Sidway (contrasts)

AssignedAsignado: 2026-09-29

Read the public opinionLeer la opinión (texto público). SourceFuente: Own brief from the public opinion as excerpted in the casebook; verify quotations against the opinion..