Opinion ID: 2972779
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: “New Business”

Text: The agreement between the parties noted that if Mr. Chase became inactive, “his commissions on new business will cease to be paid.” While we have found that the district court correctly determined that plaintiffs are not entitled to any post-termination 12 Nos. 04-1613/1671 Chase, et al. v. Matsu Mfg., Inc., et al. commissions, the Court notes that if the “new business” clause was construed as plaintiffs contend, it would be surplusage, as the agreement entitles plaintiffs to commissions only on business associated with Mr. Chase’s sales activities. See Union Inv. Co. v. Fid. & Deposit Co. of Md., 549 F.2d 1107, 1110 (6th Cir. 1977) (“A contract will not be construed so as to reject any words as surplusage if they reasonably can be given meaning”) (citing Vary v. Shea, 36 Mich. 388, 398 (1877)). Thus, the only reasonable meaning the phrase “new business” could have is continuing revenues on parts programs that Mr. Chase sold while he was an active agent, not new sales of parts made after he stopped being an active sales representative for defendants. The only commissions that conceivably could have been due to Mr. Chase were commissions on sales for which he would be entitled to commissions, i.e., business in the form of sales that plaintiff was actually involved in making when he was acting as defendants’ agent. Thus, plaintiffs’ assertion that the phrase “new business” refers to parts sold after Mr. Chase becomes inactive (as opposed to continued revenue from parts that he previously sold) cannot be supported by the language of the agreement. See Associated Truck Lines, Inc. v. Baer, 346 Mich. 106, 77 N.W.2d 384 (1956).