Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
D manufactures stereo speakers for resale. Fisher Corporation accounted for 30 to 50 percent of D's business. Fisher ceased purchasing from D in early 1982. Gene Hedlund, president of D, and P had known each other for many years. In early 1983, Hedlund's desire to reacquire Fisher's business surfaced in conversation with P. P was socially acquainted with Ira Horon, Fisher's general manager and vice president. D originally offered P 5 percent of all Fisher orders if he got the business back to D. The parties eventually orally agreed upon a 3 percent commission. The parties were unable to agree on specific terms for a written version of their agreement, in particular the termination provision. Hedlund announced, 'I wouldn't cheat you out of your commission -- Let's shake hands,' they did just that and agreed a writing was unnecessary. Horon came to Palm Springs approximately once a month for relaxation. P frequently met him at the airport and joined him for golf and dinner. P was to maintain these activities, generally wining and dining Horon with a view to introducing him to Hedlund at the propitious moment. Everything went well. In April, Fisher again became a customer of D. P continued to entertain Horon and to collect his 3 percent commission on Fisher orders through 1983. In early 1984, D unilaterally attempted to reduce the commission to 2 percent and, on May 15, P was summarily terminated. P's friendship with Horon endured until the latter's death in January 1985; his commissions did not. Fisher continued to place orders with D, accounting for almost $10 million in business through July 1985. P sued D in quantum meruit, and fraud. P had compiled, from D invoices, a listing of all Fisher invoices from April 1983 through July 1985, including total dollar amounts, commissions due to P, and amounts received against those totals. Hedlund objected. A referee found $241,314.34 due and owing through July 15, 1985. This amount was the cumulative total of the monthly commissions payable to P beginning on the date of his termination. The court awarded $155,955.84, the amount appearing on the referee's report as cumulative commissions due as of December 15, 1984. The court found that P was entitled to the reasonable value of the services he performed. The court weighed the factors favoring each party. It then concluded awarding commissions through December 15, 1984, provided P 'with reasonable compensation for placing the account with D and yet does not compensate him beyond a point when he could no longer influence the placement of the account.' Both parties appealed. D objects to any award of commissions based on sales made to Fisher after P's termination. P argues because he was the procuring cause of Fisher's involvement with D, he is essentially entitled to commissions for the life of that relationship.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co