### Throu gh out the o pin ion , “Griffith ” refers to b othTo m G ri ff ithWater W ell & 1 

### Conduct or Se rvi ce , Inc. , and it s owne r, Tom Grif fi th. I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI

NO. 2 0 0 7 - CT - 0 0 6 3 9 - S CT W IL L IA M S. H A R R IS
v. TOM GR I FF I T H W AT ER W EL L & CON

DUC TOR S ERVICE, I

NC. ON W RI T OF CE RT I ORARI D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 04/ 11/ 2007 TRI AL J UDG E: HON
. J AM ES H. C. THOM AS, J R. COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: M ARI ON COU NTY CHANCERY COURT A T T O R N E Y S F O R A P P E L L A N T : L
. C L A R K H IC K S , JR L. GR AN T BEN NETT A T T O R N E Y S F O R A P P E L L E E : T H O M A S J . L O W E , J R
. REN EE M
. PORTER NATURE OF THE CAS E: CI VI L - CONTRACT DI S P OS I T I ON: T HE J UDGMENT OF T HE CO UR T OF AP P E AL S I S RE VE RS E D. T HE J UDGMENT OF T HE M ARI ON COU NTY CHANCERY CO UR T I S RE I NS T AT E D AND A F F I RMED - 01/ 28/ 2010 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:
EN BA NC. KI TCHEN S , J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1
. W i l l i am H ar r i s s ue d hi s f ormere mpl oy e r , Tom G r i f f i th W a t e rW e l l & C onduct or S erv ice, I n c. (G ri ffi th W ater W ell , alt ern ati v ely, G ri ffi th), in the M arion C o u n ty C h an ce ry 1 C o u rt, alle g in g th a t G riffith h a d fa iled to c o m p e n sa te h im fu lly fo r h is s e rv ice s p u rsu a n t to

### 2

a verbal agr eement . Fol l ow i ng t r i al , t he chanc el l orent er ed a j udgm enti n fa vorof G r i f f i th, f i ndi ng t hat the t erm s of t hei ri ni t i al agr eementhad bee n m odi f i ed and thatH arr i s w as not
ow ed any m oney. T he C our tof A ppeal s re ver s ed, and thi s C our tgr ant ed G r i f f i t h’ s pet i t i on f orw r i tof ce r t i or ar i
. B eca us e the cha ncel l or ’ s rul i ng w as s uppor t ed by s ubs t ant i al evi dence , w e re v e rse th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls a n d re in sta te th e ju d g m e n t o f th e c h a n c e ry c o u rt. I. ¶ 2
. H a rris b e g a n w o rk in g fo r G riffi th W a te r W e ll in 1 9 9 2 o n a p a rt-tim e b a sis , b u t in 1994, he bec ame a f

ul l
- t i m e s al esman f

orthe company. H arr i s and G r i f f i t h had a ve rbal agr eementunderw hi ch G r i f f i t h agr eed t o pay H arr i s a t en- per centcomm i s s i on on s al es m ade by H arr i s . I n addi t i on t o hi s com m i s s i on, H arr i s w as pai d sepa r at el y foradmi ni s t r at i ve of f i ce
w or k. ¶3. T he par t i es oper at ed under t hi s agr eement f or a f ew year s ; but , acc or di ng t o G r i f f i th, in 1 9 9 5 o r 19 9 6 , the a g ree m en t w as m o d if ied s o th at H arris w as p aid a set salary for h is w o rk
as a sa l es m an. H arr i s cont i nued t o re cei ve t w o paychec ks perw eek. G r i f f i t h w i t hhel d t axes fr om on l y o ne of t he check s. A ccordi ng to G ri ff i t h, H arr i s r equ est ed tw o separat e chec ks, buti tw as under s t ood t hatH arr i s w as no l ongerr ece i vi ng comm i s s i ons . F r om t i m e t o t i m e, th e a m o u n t o f t h e c h e c k s w o u ld c h a n g e . G riffith e x p lain e d th a t th e d iffe re n t am o u n ts
r ef l ect ed t he ups and dow ns of hi s bus i nes s r evenue , buthe had a t t empt ed t o pay H arr i s an annual s al ary of

$52, 000. ¶4
. A ccor di ng t o H ar r i s , t he p a r t i e s n e ve ra gr e e d t o modi f y t he t e r ms of

t he i ni t i al
a g ree m en t. H arris test if ied tha t h e w o u ld crea te i n v o ices for h is sales an d sub m itth em to

### 3

G ri ff i t h for com m i ssi on paym ents , but G ri ff i t h nev er paid the ful l am ou nt on these i nv oices
. I ns t ead, H arr i s cons i der ed t he checks he r ece i ved as payment s t ow ar d the t ot al amount of
c o m m iss io n th a t h e c laim e d G riffith o w e d h im . G riffith tes tified th a t H a rris h a d g iv e n h im i nvoi ces , buthe had t ol d H arr i s t he i nvoi ces w er e no l ongerneeded bec aus e H arr i s w as now
o n a fix e d sa lar y . H a rris a d m itt e d th a t h e h a d n o th in g in w riting fro m G riffith
a c k n o w le d g in g a n y d e b t. ¶5. Fur t herm or e, G r i f f i t h’ s bookkeepe rt es t i f

i ed tha t , a ts ome p oi nt , G r i f f i t h began payi ng H arr i s a s etamount r athert han an am ountbase d on s al es . She al s o t es t i f i ed thats he neve r
s aw any i nvoi ces fr om H arr i s and thatH arr i s neveri nf or m ed hert hathe w as ow ed addi t i onal compensa t i on. ¶ 6
. In e a rly 2 0 0 2 , G ri ff ith to ld H a rr is th a t h e c o u ld n o lo n g e r a ffo rd to k e e p H a rris empl oyed, and t hei rre l at i ons hi p w as t erm i nat ed. T w o m onths l at er , H arr i s fi l ed t hi s br eac hof
- contr actact i on . G ri f

f i t h t es t i f i ed he w as unaw ar e thatH arr i s bel i eved he w as ow ed
a d d iti o n a l co m p e n sa tio n u n til G riffith re c e iv e d n o tice o f H a rris’ s s u it. II. ¶7. T hi s cas e pr es ent s ques t i ons of l aw and f act . A s f or ques t i ons of f

act , “[ w ] e w i l l not di s turb t he f

i ndi ngs of

a cha ncel l orw hen s uppor t ed by s ubs t ant i al evi dence unl es s t he chanc el l orabus ed hi s di s cr et i on, appl i ed an err oneous l egal st andar d, w as m ani f es t l y w r ong,
orw as cl ear l y err oneous . ” Stanley v. Mis s . State Pilot s of G ul f por t , I nc. , 951 So. 2d 535, 538 ( M i s s . 2006) ( qu oti ng Wil lia ms v. Wil

lia ms , 8 4 3 S o . 2 d 7 2 0 , 7 2 2 (M iss. 2 0 0 3 )).

### 4

Q u e s tio n s o f l a w a re re v ie w e d d e n o v o . B i glane v. U

nderT he Hil l Cor p. , 949 So. 2d 9, 14 ( M i s s . 2007) ( ci t i ng C um m ings v. B enderm an , 6 8 1 S o . 2 d 9 7 , 1 0 0 (M iss. 1 9 9 6 )). ¶8. T he chan cel l or no t ed i n his j ud gm ent t hat, abse n t a w ri tt en agreem ent, t he p art i es’ i nt entw as det erm i ned by thei rconductand f ound t hat“ther e w as ess enti al l y a contr actof empl oym entatw i l l betw een t he par t i es , i ni t i al l y ba s ed on H arr i s r ece i vi ng a c om m i s s i on, as
r ef l ect ed by G r i f

f i t h’ s paymentm ethod , and then cha nged t o a w eekl y s al ary. ” The chanc el l oral s o hel d t hatt he doctr i ne of l ache s appl i ed, ci t i ng H all v. D il lard , 739 So. 2d 383 (M is s . C t. A p p . 1 9 9 9 ), a n d th a t H a rr is h a d a c q u ie s c e d in th e s a la ry . ¶9. I n r ever s i ng t he chanc ery cour t , t he C our t of A ppeal s couche d t he i s s ue as “w hether a novat i on of

t he agr eementoccurr ed thatchange d H arr i s ’ s s t atus f r om an i ndepen dent contr act ort o an empl oyee. ” H ar r is v. T om G r i f f ith W aterW el l and C onductorSer v. I nc. , 2 0 0 9 W L 1 7 6 1 2 1 a t ¶ 2 0 . (M is s . C t. A p p . J a n . 2 7 , 2 0 0 9 ). T h e c o u rt re a s o n e d th a t, B ase d o n o u r rev iew o f th e re co rd, w e c an n o t f ind su b sta n tial evid en ce o f a n o v ati o n o f th e initi al sales c o m m issi o n ag ree m en t. In th is r eg ard , w e a re m i nd ful t hatG r i f

f i t h t es t i f i ed thatther e w as and thatthe cha ncel l or , as the fi nd er of fact , w as ent i t l ed to accept G ri ff i t h ' s a ssert i on t hat there w as a n o v a tio n . H o w e v e r, itc a n n o t b e o v e rlo o k e d th a t G riffith c o u ld n o t sta te w ith any sp e c i f

i c i t y a s t o when t he no va t i on oc c urr e d, no rc ou l d h e pr od uc e a ny do cum entat i on t hat corroborated his t est i m on y. U nd er these ci rcum st ances, w e ca nnots ay thatt her e w as s ubs t ant i al evi dence t hata novat i on i n f act o c c u rr e d
. I d. a t ¶ 2 8 . T h e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls d id n o t cite a n y a u th o rity p e rta in in g to c o n tra c t law in
re a c h in g its d e c is io n .

### Gri ff it h argues for

thefirs t tim e on a

ppea l t hat thecontra ct

is unenforce abl e unde r 2 

### the statute o f frau ds, Mississip pi Co de Sectio n 15 -3-1 , b ecause it w as n ot in writing . Miss. Co deAnn. § 1 5- 3- 1 ( Re v. 20 03 )
. Ev e n if thi s i s s uewe r e pre s e rve d f or a pp e l l at e r e vi e w, wh ich is n ot th e case, we n ote th at 5 ¶10. W e di s agr ee thatt he conce ptof novat i on i s appl i cabl e t o t hi s cas e. “[ A ] novat i on m ay
occurw her e the debtr emai ns t he s ame, buta new de bt ori s s ubs t i tut ed. I n s uch eve nt , t he
o rig in a l d e b to r is a c q u itt e d , h is o b lig a tio n is e x tin g u ish e d , an d th e c re d ito r c o n ten ts h im se lf
w ith th e o b lig a tio n o f t h e s e c o n d d e b to r.” Mis s . I ns. G uar. A s s ’n v. M

S Cas . I ns. Co. , 947 So. 2d 865, 871 ( M i s s . 2006) ( quot i ng G r eenw ood Lef lor e Hos p. Com m ’n v. Turner , 213 M is s . 2 0 0 , 5 6 S o . 2 d 4 9 6 , 4 9 7 ( 1 9 5 2 ))
. See al s o Fi rs t Am . N at ’ l Bank of I uka v. Alc orn, I nc. , 361 So. 2d 481, 487 (M i s s . 1978) ( ci t i ng Miss . Mo to r Fin ., In c . v. E n is , 254 M i s s . 625, 181 So. 2d 903 ( 1966) )
. T he R es t at ementof C ontr act s def

i nes novat i on as a contr actt hat ( a) di s char ges i m m edi at el y a pr evi ous contr actual dut y ora duty t o m ake compensa t i on, and ( b) cr eat es a new contr actual duty, and ( c) i ncl udes as a part y one w ho nei t herow ed the pr evi ous dut y norw as ent i t l ed t o i t s per f

or m ance . R e s ta te m e n t ( F ir s t) o f C o n tr a c ts § 4 2 4 (1 9 3 2 ). ¶11. I n ot herw or ds , a novat i on i nvol ves a s ubs t i tut ed cont ract . In t he i nst antcas e, the p a rties to th e c o n tra c t d id n o t ch a n g e a n d n o n e w o b lig a tio n s w e re c re a ted . T h e iss u e is
w hethert he t erm s of

an exi s t i ng verbal agr eementw er e modi f i ed, i
. e. , w hether the i ni t i al
a g re e m e n t th a t H a rris w o u ld b e p a id c o m m iss io n s o n h is s a les w a s m o d ified so tha t H a rris t her eaf t erw as t o be compens at ed by a f i xed s al ary. 2

### Co ntracts o f present emplo yment an d of ind efinite duratio n g enerallyare held

not t o be wi thin theme aning of this st at utere quiring c ontrac ts not t o be per for me d within f

if te en m onths to bein writing, sincesuc h contra ct s are te rminabl e at any timeby theparti es , and ar e ther ef oresus ceptibleof perfo rmance w ithina year fro m the time o f their in ceptio n. U.S. Finance Co. v. Barber , 247 Mi ss . 800, 810, 157 So. 2d 394, 397 ( 1963). 6 ¶12. “A ny contr act , h ow ever m ade or evidenced , can b e d i scharge d orm odi f i ed by
s ubs equentagr eementof t he part i es . ” A nder ton v. B us. A ir cr af t , I nc. , 650 So. 2d 473, 475- 76 ( M i s s . 1995) ( quot i ng K el s o v. McG ow an , 6 04 S o. 2d 726, 731 ( M i s s . 1992) )
. “[ T ] he
s ubs equentact i ons of

t he part i es pur s uantt o a c ontr actmay s uppor ta f i ndi ng t hatt he or i gi nal
c o n tr a c t h a s b e e n m o d if ie d to a n e x te n t c o n s is te n t w ith th e su b s e q u e n t c o u rs e o f c o n d u c t.” K ig h t v . Sh e

p p a r d B ld g. S u p p ly, I n c ., 537 So. 2d 1355, 1359 ( M i s s . 1989) ( ci t i ng Stinson
v. B a rk sda le , 2 4 5 S o . 2 d 5 9 5 , 5 9 7 -98 (M iss. 1 9 7 1 )). ¶13. I n t he i ns t ant cas e, w e cannot s ay t hat t he chanc el l or abus ed hi s di s cr et i on i n f i ndi ng t hatt he conduc tof

t he part i es evi dence d thei ri nt entt o m odi f y the t erm s of

t he or i gi nal
a g r e e me n t . As t h e p l a i n t i f f , Ha r r i s b o r e th e b u r d e n o f p r o v i n g h i s b r e a c h
- o f

- c o n t r a c tc l a i m, G ar nerv. H

i ckm an , 733 So. 2d 191, 195 ( M i s s . 1999) ( ci t i ng W ar w i ck v. Matheney , 603 So. 2d 330, 336 (M i s s . 1992) ) , and H arr i s coul d notof f erany document ary evi dence , ot her th a n h is o w n led g e rs, th a t h e w a s o w e d a d d itio n a l co m p e n sa tio n . G riffith c o n sis ten tly
m ai nt ai ned thatt he verbal agr eementhad been m odi f i ed so thatH arr i s w oul d r ece i ve a s et salary rath er th an a c o m m issi o n . A s the C o u rto f A p p ea ls ac k n o w ledg ed , b ase d o n G ri ffi th’s t es t i m ony, “ H arr i s acqui es ced i n t he cha nge. ” H a rr is , 2 00 9 W L 1 76 12 1 at¶ 21
. T he case

### 7

es s ent i al l y hi nged on t he conf l i ctbetw een H arr i s ’ s and G r i f f i t h’ s t es t i m ony, and, as the f i nderof f act , t he cha ncel l orw as w i thi n hi s di s cr et i on t o f i nd t hatG r i f

f i t h’ s ver s i on w as t he
m o s t c re d ib le
. ¶14
. W e fi nd t h at the re w as subst anti al evidence to supp ortt he ch ancell or’ s f i nd i ng s. A ccor di ngl y, w e r ever s e t he j udgm entof t he C our tof

A ppeal s and r ei ns t at e and a f f i r m the chanc ery cour t ’ s j udgm enti n f avorof G r i f f i t h. ¶ 1 5
. T HE J UD GM EN T OF THE COURT OF AP P EA LS I S RE VE RS E D. T HE J UDG M ENT OF THE M ARI ON CO UNTY C HA NCERY CO URT I S REI NST ATED AND AF F I RM ED . W AL L E R, C. J . , CA RL S ON AN D G RA VE S , P . J J . , DI CKI NS ON, RA ND OL P H, L A M A R , C H A N D L E R A N D P I E R C E , J J ., C O N C U R .