Opinion ID: 492486
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Varian, General Electric and Siemens Agreements.

Text: 8 The parties dispute whether Pioneer entered into binding contracts with Varian, General Electric, and Siemens when the original purchase agreements were signed. 9 Pioneer argues now, as it did at trial, that the purchase agreements between Pioneer and Varian, General Electric, and Siemens were intended to be pricing agreements and not binding contracts upon which Cavic would be due commissions. The agreements, Pioneer asserts, merely establish a firm price base to guide future contracts for as long as three years. Thus, Pioneer argues, the individual purchase orders placed pursuant to these pricing agreements were the binding contracts from which Cavic's commissions should be determined. Any purchase order received after Cavic's termination, according to Pioneer, would not trigger a commission. 10 To the contrary, the trial court found these agreements were intended to be long term requirements contracts, specifically authorized by and binding under Article 2 of Colorado's version of the Uniform Commercial Code. Thus, any purchase orders written pursuant to these contracts, even though received after Cavic's termination, generated commissions to Cavic. 11 When the existence of a contract depends upon the intent of the parties, the issue is one of fact reserved for the trier of fact. Acree v. Minolta Corp., 748 F.2d 1382, 1387 (10th Cir.1984). Furthermore, while we are not limited to a clearly erroneous standard of review regarding an unambiguous written agreement, when the trial court resorts to extrinsic testimony to ascertain the meaning of the contractual terms, the interpretation is factual. Carpenters & Millwrights Health Benefit Trust Fund v. Gardineer Dry Walling Co., 573 F.2d 1172, 1173 (10th Cir.1978). See also Southwestern Stationery & Bank Supply, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 624 F.2d 168, 170 (10th Cir.1980). When the district court's interpretation is aided by extrinsic evidence it cannot be set aside unless clearly erroneous. Carpenters, 573 F.2d at 1173. 12 The trial court's conclusion that the agreements were intended to be long term requirements contracts specifically relied upon evidence of the intent of the parties to the agreements. The court heard testimony from two witnesses who stated that the custom of Pioneer, and the machining industry as a whole, was to secure business through long term contracts. Additionally, the court noted the president of Pioneer himself labeled the agreements long term contractual relationships in a letter to company stockholders. Based upon this evidence, and according to the standards above, we hold that the trial court did not err.
13 Pioneer also argues that Cavic is not entitled to any further commissions on orders from Varian, General Electric or Siemens because Cavic's employment contract limits payment of commissions to orders received and accepted prior to his termination. Since the commissions Cavic claims were computed from purchase orders received or accepted after Cavic was fired, Pioneer argues, the clear language of the agreement should bar his recovery. 3 14 This argument necessarily relies on a finding that the agreements between Pioneer and Varian, General Electric and Siemens were not long term requirements contracts. But, as the trial court has found, this is not the case. As binding, long term requirements contracts, any purchase orders made pursuant to those contracts triggered commissions to Cavic, the representative responsible for procuring the underlying agreements. 15 Further, Pioneer argues that the original agreement between Pioneer and Varian expired by its own terms in 1978 and that therefore Cavic is not entitled to commissions from any sales to Varian after 1978. The trial court found that despite the expiration of the Varian contract in 1978, the parties continued to perform pursuant to an oral agreement based upon the terms of the original contract. This finding is supported by the record and is not clearly erroneous. See T'ai Corp. v. Kalso Systemet, Inc., 568 F.2d 145, 147 (10th Cir.1977). 16