Case Name: Louis Lipp Co. v. Wm. H. Fennell
Court: Ohio Circuit Court
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1909-12-04
Citations: 21 Ohio C.C. Dec. 567
Docket Number: 
Parties: Louis Lipp Co. v. Wm. H. Fennell.
Judges: Giffen, Smith and Swing, JJ.
Reporter: Ohio Circuit Court Decisions
Volume: 21
Pages: 567–568

Head Matter:
CONTRACTS.
[Hamilton (1st) Circuit Court,
December 4, 1909.]
Giffen, Smith and Swing, JJ.
Louis Lipp Co. v. Wm. H. Fennell.
Proposal and Acceptance Constituting Contract of Employment for Yeab.
A proposal, “to start in * * * at $2,200 for the first year,” and acceptance “to try the proposition” constitutes a contract • of employment for at least one year. .
Error to Hamilton common pleas court.
Cobb, Howard & Bailey, for plaintiff in error.
Pogue & Pogue, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
"GIFFEN, J.
The defendant in error, a traveling 'salesman, was employed by the plaintiff in error by written proposal and acceptance as follows:
"I am willing to start in with you at $2,200 for the first year, and I will guarantee you will not lose by it. ' '
Answer: "We are willing to try the proposition you make us and would ask you to make arrangements to start July 1."
The salesman evidently expected the employment to continue for a longer period than one year; but the proposal is limited to one year "at $2,200." The word "at" is suitable to express "value" as well as "rate," and was so used, we think, in this case. If any emphasis is to be given the verb "to try" it must be applied to the period mentioned in the proposal, to wit, the first year.
Both parties evidently regarded the trial period as one year, the salesman offering to start in for one year at $2,200 and the employer Agreeing to try him for that period.
Our conclusion is, that the contract was for at least a year's service.. Of course this did not prevent his discharge for good cause; but the jury has found against the plaintiff in error upon that issue.
The court did not err in refusing the third special instruction requested by defendant.
Finding no error of record the judgment is affirmed.
Smith and Swing, JJ., concur.