Court Opinion

ID: 9710802
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:18:00.469091+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:00.018665
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Mr. Justice Ladner:
I dissent from the judgment of the majority because I believe with the learned trial judge that this case falls within the type of cases recognized in Slonaker v. P. G. Publishing Co., 338 Pa. 292, 13 A. 2d 48 (1940), where *458it is said at page 296, “Thus contracts which do not fix a' definite time for the duration of the relationship which they create are sometimes construed as providing for a reasonable time or some particular period inferred from the nature and circumstances of the undertaking.” (emphasis supplied)
In this case though no definite duration was fixed by the terms of the oral contract, the plaintiff was employed to secure customers to lease a nut vending machine and to purchase the product, viz., nuts which the appellant Avas to supply. • The lease contracts were for a definite term with a renewal clause therein which continued the lease contract for one year after the end of the initial term of five years, and so on from year to year until either party terminated the lease by the specified notice. The plaintiff’s compensation was agreed to .be 10% on the initial sale to a neAV customer and a commission on repeat orders ranging from 6%% on three cáse lots of nuts and 5% on ten case lots to 2%% on larger quantities.
• It seems to me that under the rule laid down in the Slonalcer case the jury had a right to infer a reasonable period intended by the parties to govern the continuance of compensation, to be as long as the customers secured by the plaintiff continued in force the written lease and sent in repeat orders for the nuts. The compensation tor which the plaintiff worked Avas not merely the 10% for the initial order but also the commission on repeat orders whichever the period."of years no doubt would, and probably did, build a worth while compensation. True, the employer might"'"end' the right of the salesman to secure new outlets for the employer’s product, but to terminate his right to- compensation on repeat orders so- long as the leases remain in force seems to be as. unjust as-it is unrealistic.
¿.T: would affirm .the. judgment entered on the verdict.