stating that “[t]here can be no question that there was a partial cancellation, since the teachers’ old contract, providing that they would work ten months at a certain annual salary, was replaced by a new contract that provided they would work only nine months at a commensurately reduced annual salary”
How later courts described this case
- stating that “[t]here can be no question that there was a partial cancellation, since the teachers’ old contract, providing that they would work ten months at a certain annual salary, was replaced by a new contract that provided they would work only nine months at a commensurately reduced annual salary”
- holding “an attempted waiver of the protection afforded by teacher tenure laws is ineffectual on public policy grounds”
- failing to find a "meeting of the minds” when new employment contracts were signed "under protest and under duress”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
We would affirm, agreeing with the reasoning in the majority opinion by the Court of Civil Appeals in this case. *Page 43