Opinion ID: 1672190
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: On Carlock's Counterclaim

Text: The areas of disagreement are as follows: Whether the counterclaim, or any part of it, is barred by the statute of limitations. If not, whether the distributor's agreement, Exhibit 1, is ambiguous, thereby authorizing admission of extrinsic evidence of the contractual obligations of the parties. If so, of what terms the complete agreement consists. Whether Carlock's territory was exclusive, and the perimeters of exclusivity. Whether American and/or Modine made sales and/or shipments of their products into Carlock's exclusive territory in violation of the contractual arrangements. If so, the amount of damages, if any, to which Carlock is entitled on this feature of the case. Whether engineering and consulting work performed by Carlock effecting specification of manufacturer's products resulting in sales outside Carlock's territory were compensable under the contractual arrangements; whether in fact such specifications occurred through Carlock's efforts, for which he was not compensated, and the amount of damages, if any, to which he is entitled on this feature of the case. Whether Carlock was entitled to additional amounts under the sales bonus discount plan for his activities during the years 1962-1965, both inclusive. Whether American allowed other distributors and other firms greater discounts than those allowed Carlock, in violation of the contractual arrangements of the parties, and if so the amount of damages, if any, to which Carlock is entitled on this score. Whether American refused to cooperate with Carlock in developing his territory, in violation of its contractual obligations, to his damage.