Title: Allen D. Shadron, Inc. v. Cole
Citation: 101 Ariz. 122, 101 Ariz. 341, 416 P.2d 555, 419 P.2d 520
Docket Number: 7420-PR
State: Arizona
Issuer: Arizona Supreme Court
Date: October 26, 1966

101 Ariz. 341 (1966) 419 P.2d 520 ALLEN D. SHADRON, INC., an Arizona corporation, Appellant, v. Richard E. COLE, Appellee. No. 7420-PR. Supreme Court of Arizona. In Banc. October 26, 1966. *342 Hall, Jones, Hannah &amp; Trachta, Tucson, for appellant. James M. Murphy, John U. Vinson, Tucson, for appellee. STRUCKMEYER, Chief Justice This action concerns certain commissions earned by appellant as a real estate salesman for appellee under a written contract of one year's employment. Appellee recovered a judgment in the trial court and, on appeal to the Court of Appeals, that court reversed, 2 Ariz. App. 69, 406 P.2d 419. We vacated its opinion and affirmed the judgment. Shadron, Inc. v. Cole, 101 Ariz. 122, 416 P.2d 555. The undisputed evidence establishes that appellee, during the final two months of the contract, did not perform in that he did not devote his full time and services as a real estate salesman to his employment. In our decision in this cause, we quoted from the contract to the effect that the contract could be terminated and stated: Shadron calls our attention in its motion for rehearing to the fact that the contract further provided: It is therefore true, as Shadron urges, that if Cole had terminated the contract by verbal or written notice he would have been in a worse position since he would not have been entitled to the additional commissions. This contract was not terminated by either party by verbal or written notice. If anything, Cole abandoned the contract by failure of performance during the months of November and December of 1959. It is to be emphasized that Shadron did not claim nor does it urge here that it was damaged by the breach of the contract. In its motion for rehearing, Shadron urges that Cole, in effect, terminated the contract by his breach and that, therefore, the breach deprived Cole of any right to receive additional commissions at a later date in the absence of a new consideration. We do not so understand the law. The rule that a party who has failed to perform his contract cannot recover on the contract for part performance applies only to entire and indivisible, and not to severable, contracts. There may be a recovery on the contract for part performance of a divisible contract. We said, in Cracchiolo v. Carlucci, 62 Ariz. 284, 157 P.2d 352: In Carrig v. Gilbert-Varker Corp., 314 Mass. 351, 50 N.E.2d 59, 147 A.L.R. 927, the rule was extensively discussed, the court there saying in part: In the present case, we think the contract was a divisible one. Cole was to be paid by a fifty per cent division of the real estate commission earned on sales which he effected with the added percentages as disclosed in the original opinion. The commissions here sought to be recovered were on sales completed under the contract at the time Cole breached the contract. Accordingly, under the rule cited, he was not barred from recovery for part performance. Shadron further reargues its position, which was disposed of in the prior opinion. We have examined these arguments and, finding nothing that would convince us that the decision was in error, we do not consider them grounds for reconsideration. Climate Control, Inc. v. Hill, 87 Ariz. 201, 349 P.2d 771. Judgment affirmed. BERNSTEIN, V.C.J., UDALL, and McFARLAND, JJ., concur. NOTE: Justice LORNA E. LOCKWOOD did not participate in the determination of this case.