Opinion ID: 532532
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Attribution of Bookings to Opel

Text: 30 Though we agree with the district court that the meaning of the term booking is clear, that conclusion does not resolve the controversy. We cannot affirm the district court's decision on the basis of the present record and findings, because the fact that all customer reservations are bookings does not mean that all Manhattan bookings were bookings attributable to Opel. 31 Hunt's compensation was not contractually defined with reference to territorial revenues. Rather it was linked to the salesmen Hunt placed. Thus, p 2 of the Agreement did not provide that Hunt was to receive two percent of all of Lifschultz's bookings for the territory to which a salesman it placed was assigned; instead, it provided that Hunt was to receive two percent of the bookings of that salesman. Presumably, if Opel had taken a reservation from a customer from outside of New York, Hunt would seek a percentage of that booking. On the other hand, the term booking[s] of  Opel (emphasis added) does not appear to entitle Hunt to a fee based on bookings even from within his territory, if they were attributable only to Lifschultz employees other than Opel. Thus the finding that bookings meant reservations by all customers, and not just new ones placed by Opel, answered only part of the question as to how much Hunt was entitled to be paid. The other part of that question was what bookings for Lifschultz's prior customers were bookings of Opel. 32 The district court appears to have reasoned that all of Lifschultz's Manhattan bookings were attributable to Opel because Opel was, during the period in question, Lifschultz's sole sales representative for Manhattan. We have two principal difficulties with this reasoning. First, though the district court stated that its decision was rendered exclusively on the basis of the written record of pre-trial orders, amended pleadings and stipulated statements, its finding that Opel was the sole sales representative for Manhattan went beyond that record. The pretrial stipulation entered into by the parties, embodied in the pretrial order, stated that Opel was a sales representative responsible for [Lifschultz's] Manhattan territory. (Emphasis added.) There was no stipulation that Opel was the only sales representative for that territory. 33 Second, even if Opel was the only sales representative in the territory, that did not necessarily mean that only he generated bookings in that territory. In many businesses it is not uncommon to have certain accounts serviced by employees other than ordinary sales representatives. The pretrial stipulation on which the court relied does not in any way exclude the possibility that other employees may have been responsible for some of Lifschultz's Manhattan bookings. 34 In this regard, we note that Lifschultz submitted to the district court a pretrial memorandum stating that, though its practice was to have just one sales representative in a given territory at a given time, other Lifschultz personnel including the company's officers engage in soliciting business within Manhattan. Thus, it argued that bookings arranged by these other persons could not properly be regarded as bookings of Opel. This unsworn representation was not, of course, evidence, and we see no indication in the record that Lifschultz made any effort to present admissible evidence of bookings made by others--either prior to trial or in any post-trial motion to reopen the record. Though Lifschultz's representation as to bookings made by others therefore was not part of the factual materials upon which the court could make its findings, we mention it simply because it is consistent with our view that the court erred in assuming that the stipulation that Opel was a representative in Manhattan meant that he was the sole person generating bookings in that territory. 35 We note further that booking[s] of  Opel (emphasis added) might have any of several meanings. It might reasonably be interpreted to mean only reservations actually received by Opel. Or it could reasonably be interpreted to include accounts serviced by Opel, regardless of what Lifschultz employee actually received that customer's reservation. As noted by the affidavit of one of Hunt's consultants, a new salesman in an existing sales territory must manage and service existing customer accounts in addition to those new accounts that he solicits .... The present record, however, does not show that Opel took the reservations made by all of Lifschultz's Manhattan customers, or even that he had contact with all of them. 36 Nor does the record show any effort by the parties to develop the pertinent facts other than on an all-or-nothing basis. Thus, Hunt simply presented a page of Lifschultz's computer records showing a list of Manhattan customers with Opel's name at the top and argued that all Manhattan bookings were thus attributable to him. Though we might regard this as sufficient to support the granting of Hunt's entire claim if the findings indicated that the court had considered the possibility that the bookings actually attributable to Opel fell somewhere between all Manhattan revenues and only Opel's own newly-found customers, the court's memorandum decision does not persuade us that this possibility was considered. This is especially so in light of the court's apparent assumptions (a) that the parties' stipulation was that Opel was the sole sales representative in Manhattan, and (b) that only a sales representative receives bookings. 37 In sum, we find no error in the district court's conclusion that booking means reservations made by all customers, not just those made by new customers found by Opel, and we remand for a determination as to what portion of Lifschultz's bookings were bookings of Opel. The court may take such additional evidence as it deems appropriate. As trier of fact, the court is of course free to credit or reject any evidence that might come before it, including testimony that Opel had no contact with certain Manhattan customers and that Lifschultz employees other than Opel were responsible for bookings for those customers.