## Facts

- Langer, a retired long-time employee and former superintendent of Superior Steel’s annealing department, received a letter from the company promising monthly payments.
- The letter promised Langer “a pension of $100 per month as long as you live” conditioned on (1) maintaining a loyal attitude toward the company and its officers and (2) not being employed in any competitive occupation.
- Langer accepted the arrangement and alleged he complied with the conditions, including refraining from seeking or taking competitive employment.
- Superior Steel paid $100 per month for about four years, then notified Langer it would stop making payments.
- Langer alleged he suffered detriment by foregoing other employment opportunities in reliance on the promise.

## Issues

1. Whether the employer’s letter promising lifetime monthly payments, conditioned on loyalty and noncompetitive employment, stated an enforceable contract supported by consideration rather than a gratuitous promise.
2. Whether, if consideration were disputed, the alleged reliance and forbearance could make the promise enforceable under a reliance-based theory.

## Decision

- The Superior Court reversed the judgment entered for Superior Steel on the pleadings.
- The court held the pleadings alleged sufficient consideration because Langer gave up a legal right by refraining from competitive employment, and the employer obtained a benefit from that restraint.
- The court indicated the promise could also be binding where it reasonably induced definite and substantial action or forbearance and enforcement was necessary to avoid injustice.
- The case was remanded, and Superior Steel was allowed to file an affidavit of defense to the merits.

## Legal Principles

- Consideration exists where, at the promisor’s request, the promisee undertakes a real detriment or forbears from doing something the promisee was otherwise free to do.
- Forbearance from competitive employment can constitute legal detriment to the promisee and a benefit to the promisor, supporting an enforceable agreement even if styled as a “pension.”
- A conditional promise is less likely to be treated as a mere gift when the conditions function as the promisor’s bargained-for exchange.
- A promise may be binding where the promisor should reasonably expect it to induce definite and substantial action or forbearance, it does so, and enforcement is necessary to avoid injustice.
- An agreement is not invalid for lack of consideration merely because obligations are asymmetrical or one party retains an option, so long as a real detriment or benefit supports the promise.

## Conclusion

The court held that a lifetime “pension” conditioned on continued loyalty and noncompetitive employment could be enforced because the employee’s forbearance supplied consideration and, alternatively, because the promise allegedly induced reliance such that nonenforcement could result in injustice; dismissal on the pleadings was therefore improper.


Langer v. Superior Steel Corp., 105 Pa. Super. 579, 161 A. 571 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1932)