Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-87-02023/USCOURTS-ca10-87-02023-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Central Plastics
Appellee
Sandy Golgart
Appellant

Document Text:

FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

United States Coon of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

MAR 14 1990 

SANDY GOLGART, an individual, 

Plaintiff-CounterclaimDefendant-Appellant, 

SANDY GOLGART, SALES, a California 

corporation, 

Counterclaim-Defendant, 

v. 

CENTRAL PLASTICS COMPANY, an Oklahoma 

corporation, 

Defendant-CounterclaimantAppellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 87-2023 

(D.C. No. 86-2026-W) 

(W.D. Okla.) 

Befor e McKAY, SEYMOUR, Circuit Judges, and KANE,** District Judge. 

**Honorable John L. Kane, District Judge, United States District 

Court for the District of Colorado, sitting by designation. 

Plaintiff in the trial court, Sandy Golgart, brought this 

action for the construction and interpretation of a sales 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

no t be cited, or used by any court withi n t he Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of t he law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36. 3 . 

Appellate Case: 87-2023 Document: 01019966137 Date Filed: 03/14/1990 Page: 1 
commission contract with defendant, Central Plastics Company. Ms. 

Golgart appeals a judgment on the merits entered by the trial 

court dismissing her claim for sales commissions. 

The court entered findings of fact and conclusions of law, 

finding, among other things, that Ms. Golgart performed as a 

private contractor fa-r- ·Centr-al from January 1983 to February 13, 

1986, under the terms of an oral agreement entered into in 

December 1982, the terms of which were determined and given 

meaning by the parties' subsequent conduct and actions. Judgment 

at 17. The court found that the oral contract changed the terms 

of Ms. Golgart's prior guaranteed monthly salary compensation 

scheme to provide that her compensation package would thereafter 

include no more than fifty percent of her previously guaranteed 

monthly compensation plus commissions on the products she sold. 

At no time could Ms. Golgart earn more than fifty percent of the 

standard commission available on any one product, but there was no 

limit on the total dollar amount of commissions she could earn. 

The court determined that the commission rate to be applied in 

any given instance could be unilaterally changed at Central's 

discretion. Central was found to have exercised this discretion 

in a consistent, reasonable, and nonarbitrary manner . Id. 

In addition to the oral agreement, the parties, in May of 

1984, · executed a · document entitled "Agent Agreement." Based on 

testimony and evidence of the parties' conduct subsequent to the 

execution of the Agent Agreement, the district court held that 

this agreement was not intended to, nor did it, alter or modify 

the terms of the prior oral agreement and in particular was not 

2 

Appellate Case: 87-2023 Document: 01019966137 Date Filed: 03/14/1990 Page: 2 
intended to, nor did it, alter or modify the terms of Golgart's 

compensation program. The court accepted the explanation that the 

Agent Agreement was provided at the suggestion of Central's 

accountant who thought a written contract would be desirable for 

tax purposes. Tr. III at 218. Because the parties had acted in 

_ac cordance . with their oral agreement, the court found that Golgart 

had failed to prove that Central had breached its contract to pay 

sales commissions. Id . 

On appeal, Ms. Golgart argues that there was insufficient 

evidence at trial to support these conclusions. Our review of the 

briefs and the record in this case leads us to conclude that the 

evidence at trial was indeed sufficient to support the judgment. 

With regard to the effect of the Agent Agreement on Golgart's 

compensation, the trial court found that "there was no meeting of 

the minds with regard to the terms contained in the 1984 

Agreement." Judgment at 10. Thus, the document was not an 

integrated contract and extrinsic evidence was appropriately 

admitted to determine the parties' intent. Dev ine v. Ladd 

Petrol eum Corp., 743 F.2d 745, 748 & n.2 (10th Cir . 19 84). If a 

contract's construction depends upon extrinsic facts and 

circumstances, then its terms become questions of fact . Amoco 

Production Co. v. Western Slope Gas Co., 754 F.2d 30 3 , 309 (10th 

Cir . . 1985)- The findings of the trial court, therefore, will not 

be set aside unless clearly erroneous. 

Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a); see 

470 U.S. 564, 573 (1985). 

Under the clearly erroneous standard, reversal is required only if 

review of the record leaves the reviewing court with a definite 

3 

Appellate Case: 87-2023 Document: 01019966137 Date Filed: 03/14/1990 Page: 3 
and firm conviction that a 

Production, 754 F.2d at 309. 

conviction in this case. 

mistake has been made. Amoco 

We have no such definite and firm 

With regard to the issue of whether Central had promised to 

pay Ms. Golgart one hundred percent of the commissions payable on 

the products ~he sold, the court could ~easonably have concluded 

that it did not. In addition to the written commission schedule 

given to Ms. Golgart at the December 1982 meeting, which clearly 

contemplated a compensation package composed of fifty percent of 

the prior salary plus fifty percent of the standard commission at 

least through 1985, the court heard testimony fr om three witnesses 

to the effect that a fifty percent commission was the maximum 

Central ever promised to Ms. Golgart. Tr. I II at 241 , 247; Tr. II 

at 128-30; Tr. II at 190. Ms. Golgart also testified that from 

January of 1983 until her dismissal in February o f 1986 she 

continued to represent Central despite Central's refusal to pay 

her the one hundred percent commissions, and that she really never 

expected Central to pay her more than she had already been paid. 

Tr. II at 99 . This is sufficient evidence upon which the trial 

court could have based its findings of fact and conclusions of law 

regarding the calculation of Ms. Golgart's compensation. 

The trial court also received sufficient evidence that the 

agreement of the parties tontemplated Central's power to reduce 

unilaterally the rate of commissions available on certain types of 

highly discounted sales. The compensation summary presented to 

those in attendance at the December 1982 meeting states that 

"[c)ommissions on special pricing 

4 

under less 25% margin 

Appellate Case: 87-2023 Document: 01019966137 Date Filed: 03/14/1990 Page: 4 
negotiable." See Defendant's Exhibit 27. Despite the ambiguity 

created by the use of the term "negotiable," the trial court heard 

evide nce from the vice president of marketing for Central and from 

a Ce ntral sales representative that reducti o ns in c ommi s sions were 

alwa y s done unilaterally by Central wi tho ut i nput from sales 

_pe.r.sons. Tr. II at 134-35;· Tr. III at 188, 19 7, - 227- 3 0. This 

test i mony regarding the parties' understanding was s ufficient for 

the court to conclude that Central could reduce t he available 

commi ssion rate without prior agreement fr om the affected sales 

perso ns. 

Ms. Golgart also argues that the contract recognized by the 

trial court is unconscionable if it permits unilateral reductions 

in sales commissions paid. A review of the record in this case 

and of applicable law fails to support this contention. The 

agreement of the parties here is far from imposing the "onerous 

inequality, deception and oppression" required under Oklahoma law 

before a contract will be deemed unconscionable. See Barnes v. 

Helfenbein, 548 P.2d 1014, 1020 (Okla. 1976). 

Ms. Golgart's complaint that the trial court totally 

disregarded all of the written evidence in the case, particularly 

the Agent Agreement, is similarly without merit. Appellant's 

Brief at 19. The record is clear that the trial court carefully 

consider~d both the written evidence and the disputed and 

undisputed testimony in this case (Tr. II at 154-55, 163-65, 218; 

Tr. III at 243) before concluding that the 1984 Agent Agreement 

did not change the terms of the prior oral agreement. 

5 

Appellate Case: 87-2023 Document: 01019966137 Date Filed: 03/14/1990 Page: 5 
After review of the designated record and the briefs of the 

parties, we conclude that there is substantial evidence in the 

record to support the judgment, and that therefore the judgment is 

no t clearly erroneous. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

Western District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

6 

Appellate Case: 87-2023 Document: 01019966137 Date Filed: 03/14/1990 Page: 6