In recruitment processes, it is common that once suitable candidates have been identified, the company sends them a job offer prior to signing the contract. This communication usually outlines details such as the position, salary, working hours, and the expected start date. However, what happens if, before signing the contract, the company decides not to formalize the hiring or even withdraws the offer altogether?
The recent Judgment of the High Court of Justice of Murcia (July 10, 2025) sheds light on this issue, analyzing the limits and legal consequences of an employer’s withdrawal in the context of a pre-employment agreement or promise of hiring.
1. The common practice of preliminary job offers
In practice, job offers are used as an initial commitment tool. They allow the company to confirm to the candidate its decision to bring them onto the team, but the employment contract itself is usually signed on the first day of work.
These communications, which may seem merely informative, can create legitimate expectations for the candidate especially if they make important decisions (such as resigning from another job or declining other opportunities) based on the belief that the hiring will take place.
2. The case decided by the High Court of Justice of Murcia
The case analyzed by the Court is particularly illustrative.
A worker employed as a personnel control manager at another company responded to an InfoJobs advertisement for an administrative position. After several conversations with the company via WhatsApp, her hiring was agreed upon, pending only the confirmation of a specific start date, which depended on her voluntary resignation from her previous job.
The employee resigned on March 18, 2022, expecting to start her new position the following week. However, on March 24, 2022, the company informed her that she would not be hired after all, as they had decided to hire a relative to fill the position instead.
As a result, the worker filed a claim seeking over €12,000 in damages, plus €6,250 for moral damages.
3. The decision of the High Court of Justice
The High Court of Justice of Murcia ruled that the worker was entitled to compensation for the damages suffered.
The key to the Court’s reasoning was the existence of a pre-employment agreement or promise of employment, inferred from the exchange of communications between the parties. According to the Court, those conversations created a legitimate and reasonable expectation of hiring, which imposed on the company an obligation to act in good faith. The unjustified withdrawal breached this principle of mutual trust, justifying compensation for the damages caused.
4. Legal nature of the pre-employment agreement
Unlike a formal employment contract, the pre-employment agreement is not explicitly regulated under Spain’s Workers’ Statute. Its legal treatment is based on civil law principles, particularly contractual good faith and liability for damages in case of non-performance.
This means that, even if the employment relationship has not yet begun, an offer and acceptance can generate binding obligations if they clearly reflect a commitment to hire.
Spanish case law, consistent with this view, recognizes that breach of a pre-employment agreement can give rise to compensation for damages, even if the employment relationship never materializes.
5. Legal risks for companies
For companies, such situations may pose significant legal and reputational risks.
Withdrawing a job offer after the candidate has accepted it especially if the candidate has made decisions based on it can be interpreted as a contractual breach or even bad faith conduct.
Courts consider not only the existence of a formal document but also the facts and communications that demonstrate the intention to hire.
Therefore, emails, WhatsApp messages, or offer letters can serve as documentary evidence of the company’s commitment.
6. The importance of pre-contractual good faith
Good faith is the cornerstone of all pre-contractual relationships. Both the company and the candidate must act with transparency, consistency, and respect for the expectations created.
When one party unilaterally breaks off the commitment without just cause, it may result in civil liability.
In a business context, this can lead to significant financial claims as well as reputational harm for failing to honor a hiring commitment.
7. Preventive strategies: informative clauses in job offers
The Court also highlighted a useful preventive measure for companies: including informative clauses in job offer communications.
These clauses should make it clear that the offer does not constitute a binding employment commitment, but rather an expression of interest subject to the later signing of the employment contract.
This helps protect the company from potential claims, provided the wording is clear, accessible, and not misleading.
A sample clause might read:
“This communication is for informational purposes only and does not constitute a binding employment commitment. It is subject to the subsequent signing of the employment contract and fulfillment of internal selection requirements.”
8. Civil, not labor, nature of liability
Since labor law does not specifically regulate pre-employment offers, any liability arising from their breach falls under civil law.
This means that no labor rights such as seniority or social security contributions are created, but there may still be an obligation to compensate damages if the candidate legitimately relied on the hiring.
Once again, the key lies in good faith and the consistency between the company’s words and actions.
Pre-employment agreements and advanced job offers can create real obligations for companies, especially when communication with the candidate demonstrates a clear commitment to hire.
At Suárez de Vivero, we help companies design secure recruitment processes, clear job offer wording, and preventive strategies to avoid disputes arising from job offer withdrawals or claims for damages.
Contact our team for specialized advice and to ensure the legal security of your recruitment and hiring processes.
