Title: Gifford v. Sun Data, Inc.

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Gifford v. Sun Data, Inc.  (95-037); 165 Vt 611; 686 A.2d 472

[Opinion Filed 6-Aug-1996]

[Motion for Reargument Denied 4-Sep-1996]


                               ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 95-037

                             MARCH TERM, 1996


John P. Gifford and                  }     APPEALED FROM:
Total Computer Services, Inc.        }
                                     }
     v.                              }     Windsor Superior Court
                                     }
Sun Data, Inc.                       }
                                     }     DOCKET NO. S417-91-WrC


       In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       After a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff John P. Gifford, defendant
  Sun Data, Inc. moved for judgment notwithstanding verdict on claims of
  tortious interference with a contract and intentional interference with
  prospective contracts.  On appeal, Sun Data claims that the court erred in
  denying its motions, arguing that Gifford failed to meet his evidentiary
  burden. Gifford cross-appeals, claiming that the trial court erred in
  failing to give a requested jury instruction on a broker's right to recover
  a commission, and in failing to instruct the jury on punitive damages.  We
  affirm in part and reverse in part.

       Gifford, through his business, Total Computer Services, Inc.,
  purchased computer equipment for resale from Sun Data, Inc.  Gifford
  identified prospective buyers and received quotes from Sun Data for the
  cost of the equipment a buyer wished to purchase.  Gifford would complete
  the sale, marking up the Sun Data price to achieve his profit.  The parties
  also occasionally negotiated leases of Sun Data equipment with Gifford
  receiving a commission when the lease was finalized.

       To protect his client base, Gifford secured a promise from Dan
  Hendrix, then Vice President of Sun Data, that Sun Data would not solicit,
  or sell directly to, customers Gifford originally acquired.  If Sun Data
  did sell directly to such a customer, Gifford was to be paid a commission.

       By early 1989 the parties' relationship had deteriorated.  Gifford
  claimed he was owed $72,000 in commissions while Sun Data maintained
  Gifford owed it $54,000 for unpaid invoices.  At about the same time,
  Gifford entered into a $20,000 computer sale contract with David McPhaul,
  president of Harrison Publishing Company.  Before McPhaul paid the contract
  price, however, a Sun Data employee called and told him to pay the amount
  plaintiff owed Sun Data on the contract, between $7,000 and $8,000,
  directly to Sun Data.  McPhaul refused, but used the figure Sun Data quoted
  to reduce the price of his contract with Gifford from $20,000 to $10,000.
  Thereafter, Sun Data terminated its relationship with Gifford and ceased
  paying commissions he alleged were owed to him.  Sun Data also began
  selling directly to customers that Gifford had solicited.  Gifford received
  no commissions on these sales.

       After trial the jury awarded Gifford $10,000 for tortious interference
  with a contract, $68,000 for intentional interference with prospective
  contractual relations, and $16,200 for three breach-of-contract claims. 
  The jury also found that Sun Data owed Gifford approximately $62,174 in
  commissions, but offset that amount by $62,729, which it found Gifford owed
  Sun

 

  Data for overdue invoices.

                                     I.

       Sun Data first claims that the trial court erred in denying its
  motions under V.R.C.P. 50 for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding
  the verdict on the claim of tortious interference with a contract.  To
  establish liability for this tort, Gifford must show that Sun Data
  intentionally and improperly induced Harrison Publishing not to perform its
  contract.  Williams v. Chittenden Trust Co., 145 Vt. 76, 80,