Opinion ID: 1167447
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The First National Bank of Denver

Text: On March 20, 1958, the plaintiff secured an order from the First National Bank of Denver for fifteen accounting machines. This order was a firm up of a blanket order that had been made some nine months before so as to protect the bank against a price increase. A letter dated March 17, 1958 appears of record wherein the names of the plaintiff and one Greer, defendant's branch manager, are affixed. This letter is addressed to one Ashley, vice president and cashier of the bank, and states that three accounting machines were to be delivered to the bank under the order in question while the remaining twelve machines would not be delivered until the bank had completed a proposed merger and was satisfied that the first three machines measures (sic) up to your fullest expectations. The letter continues: Third, if the savings effected by the installation of the 3 Postronics do not meet with every claim we have made, and if you are not entirely satisfied with the installation, we will not ship the balance of the machines on this order. There will be no further obligations on the part of the First National Bank to the National Cash Register Company. The provisions in this letter protects (sic) you on the price of the Postronics and permits (sic) you to save $846 per machine, and at the same time enables (sic) you to prove to all parties concerned that the Postronics will do the best job possible for your bank. The first three machines were delivered to the bank and the plaintiff received his full commission thereon. Subsequently, the bank decided to install a computer system and in December, 1958 or January, 1959, some months after the plaintiff had resigned from the defendant company, the bank, through one of its officers, orally notified Greer that it would not take delivery of the remaining twelve machines. The company continued, however, to try to persuade the bank to take and install the machines which were underlivered. Finally, in a letter dated July 15, 1959, the bank formally cancelled the order. After the written cancellation, the defendant continued to attempt to interest the bank in using its accounting machines and proposed that it do so at least during the two year interim period before the bank's new computer system was to be installed. The defendant first proposed to rent the machines to the bank, and when this was rejected, it proposed a buy back arrangement by the terms of which the bank would purchase the machines subject to its right to compel the defendant to buy them back in the future at a depreciated price. The three machines which had been installed at the bank were sent to Dayton, Ohio and mechanically altered to better adapt them to the bank's system and the defendant sent specialists to the bank to train the bank's employees in the use of the altered machines and to conduct tests on the system. These efforts were successful and finally culminated in an order by the bank under the buy back proposal for sixteen modified accounting machines on November 6, 1959. The price of the modified machines was some $800.00 more per machine than the price of the remaining twelve machines in the order secured by the plaintiff on March 20, 1958. Eight of the machines were installed in the bank on November 28, 1959 and the remaining eight on January 10, 1960. The bank thereafter continued with its plan to install a computer system and put the same into effect in August, 1961. In the same month, the bank exercised its option to sell the accounting machines back to the defendant and at the time of the trial of this cause the defendant had repurchased them from the bank. The trial court held that the plaintiff was entitled to a commission on this sale, determining that the events above described resulted in a continuous transaction. In our view, the express terms of the plaintiff's contract of employment with the defendant prevent his recovery of the commission on this sale. First, the undisputed facts show that the machines were not delivered pursuant to the order obtained by the plaintiff, but rather on different terms and conditions agreed to by the bank and the defendant after cancellation of the original order and after prolonged negotiations. Under such circumstances, the following contract provision is applicable: (3) Protected Sales are sales made by you or your predecessor in your Territory which are cancelled and you or your successor secure a new order within three months from the date of the notice of cancellation. In such cases the salesman making the original sale shall be protected and shall receive the commission credit on the second sale up to the amount of the commission credit on the original sale, subject to the provisions of sub-paragraph B.1. of Section III hereof. Only the commission credit in excess of such amount shall be given the selling salesman on the new order. More than three months elapsed between the date of cancellationJuly 15, 1959and the date of the new orderNovember 6, 1959and the original sale was therefore not a protected one. Plaintiff contends also that the cancellation by the bank was not an effective one because, in his view, the bank had no right to cancel. He makes this claim in spite of the letter signed by him agreeing that the bank would not be required to take the remaining twelve machines if they were not satisfied. But even if the bank had no legal right to cancel the order, the plaintiff has no right to the commission under the circumstances of this case because the contract of employment between plaintiff and defendant provides that plaintiff's right to a commission is terminated if there is a cancellation and there is no provision in the contract requiring that such cancellation be for cause. In fact, plaintiff readily admitted in his testimony that if there had been a cancellation here and no delivery had been made at all he would not be entitled to a commission under his contract. If this be so, he cannot now contend that under his contract the defendant was required to insist on delivery under the original contract and that a failure to so insist gives him the right to a commission. Second, if the machines installed in November, 1959 and January, 1960 be considered as having been delivered under the original order secured by the plaintiff on March 20, 1958, the following contract provision is pertinent: c. Notwithstanding the generality of sub-paragraphs d, e, and f hereof, your commission interest in any order by way of either Territory or Seller's Commission, as the case may be, shall terminate upon any of the following events: (1) If shipment of the order is not made within eighteen months from the date of the order unless the Territory is assigned to you for coverage at the date of delivery and installation   . This provision accounts for the statement that appears at the head of the split sheet: This list has been prepared assuming the shipment of the products will be made within 18 months from the date of the order or confirmation   . It is undisputed that shipment and installation of this order did not occur until more than eighteen months after the plaintiff secured the original orderthis at a time when the territory was not assigned to the plaintiff, he having resigned from the company on October 31, 1958. It is readily apparent that the plaintiff cannot recover whether the delivery was considered as having taken place under the original order or as a result of a new order on November 6, 1959. If we adopt the finding of the trial court that the delivery was made under the order of March 20, 1958, the terms of the second provision of the contract above recited are applicable and the plaintiff cannot recover because more than eighteen months elapsed from the date of the order to the date of shipment and installation and did not occur while the territory was assigned to the plaintiff. If we consider the order of November 6, 1959 as a new order, the plaintiff cannot bring himself within the protected sales provision since more than three months elapsed between the date of the new order and the date of the cancellation. The trial court overlooked these key provisions of the contract of employment. The plaintiff attacks these provisions as loopholes, but, if they are, they are expressly provided for by the contract and we are not apprised of any theory which would dictate their exclusion from the case.