HomeMy WebLinkAbout1481 }
building estimates. The defendant having final responsibility
together with his vast prior construction experience, it is
evident to the Court that any loss on any contract of defendant
corporation should not be attributed to plaintiff. The Court .
cannot accept this version of defendant's understanding of the-
. oral agreement.
Among other things, plaintiff claims he .is entitled
to a five (5$) per cent commission, plus extras, on all residences
constructed by defendant. One of .the homes plaintiff seeks a
real estate commission was a home constructed by defendant for ~
R. RUHN. R. KUHN testified that he never knew the plaintiff
before, that defendant tied built a residence for him long before
the present action and he personally contacted EUGENE GILBERT
t
- to build him another residence (apparently well satisfied with
his dealings with EUGENE GILBERT). He further testified that
he had no dealings at all with plaintiff. In the Court's opinion,
to permit plaintiff to receive commissions on alI residential
buildings built by defendant would be unfair, and the Court can-
not accept plaintiff's version as to this part of the oral agree-
ment.
In plaintiff's case, under direct testimony, plaintiff
I
produced one witness, ELIZABETH MUMM (former bookkeeper of the
defendant corporation) who testified among other things as to
her understanding of the oral agreement of the parties. She
- testified that she understood that plaintiff was to receive -
$200.00 per week to be a draw against commissions and that plain-
tiff would receive a five (5~) per cent commission only on sales
he solicited. Further, that the five (5~) per cent would not -
apply to extras. A party putting up a witness thereby holds him
out as worthy of credit. See Montgomery v. Knox, 3 So. 211.
This appears to be a fair understanding of the oral agreement
i
rrs
t
- 3 - i
` i
.
.i
~u,