Week Three Case Study
Melissa A. Runnels
In reading question 7 on page 369, I do not think Cantu has a good argument. This question involves a teacher in San Benito ISD. First, she hand delivered her letter of resignation to her supervisor on the 18th of Aug, which stated an effective date of Aug 17th. Two days later on the 20th of August, that letter reaches the only person who can accept her resignation, and that is the superintendent of schools. She went into the superintendent’s office and hand delivered a letter rescinding her resignation on the 21st of August. The district then sent her a letter by mail stating her resignation had been accepted and could not be withdrawn. Cantus argument was that the Mailbox Rule did not apply here because her offer was delivered in person, and that the superintendent was not authorized to accept it by mail. Her resignation was valid upon dispatch of her letter of resignation, and it clearly states that in the mailbox rule. The only argument that could save her is if her contract clearly stated that resignation could not be received by mail. Unfortunately, due to the facts of this case, I am afraid that the State Commissioner of Education decision stating the school board’s decision was valid and lawful, is correct. They decided her resignation was valid when mailed so the Mailbox Rule is valid.
Okosa v. Hall
718 A.2d 1223 (N.J. Super. CT., APP. Div. 1998)
* The Plaintiff = Hall
* The Defendant= Okosa
The Okosa family had an automobile policy thru New Jersey Citizens United Reciprocal Exchange. Their payment of $347.50 was due by the February 28, 1994. The Okosas received a letter on March 1, 1994 that stated if they did not make a payment by March 15, 1994; their policy would be cancelled at 12:01 on March 16, 1994. The Okosas mailed the payment via certified mail dated March 15, 1994. Their payment for the automobile policy was cashed March 22, 1994. On the 16th of March, she was in an accident...