Court Opinion

ID: 9459689
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 21:28:52.415925+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:49.387042
License: Public Domain

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
Before AINSWORTH, GODBOLD and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
On rehearing Vanston challenges the correctness of that portion of our original opinion which held that he had failed to establish damages under his contractual theory of recovery. He contends that Connecticut General’s breach of the exclusive agency contract prevented his performance and that Texas law entitles him to recover the reasonable profit he would have made on the sale of his product. He now points out that Texas would allow as a prima facie measure of that reasonable profit the amount represented by the stipulated commission, citing Park v. Swartz, 110 Tex. 564, 222 S.W. 156 (1920); McDonald v. Davis, 389 S.W.2d 494 (Tex.Civ.App.1965). See also Pickett v. Bishop, 148 Tex. 207, 223 S.W.2d 222 (1949). Thus, he asserts, he may still recover in contract without further proof of damages.
The rule enunciated in these cases is of no aid to Vanston on this appeal. Such a measure of damages for breach of contract is based on a presumption that the agent would have made the sale but for the interference of the principal and places the burden on the principal to prove that the agent could not or would not have made the sale. In the ease at bar, substantial evidence was introduced to show that Vanston would not have earned the commissions even if Connecticut General had not competed for the Allied account. The jury resolution of this Factual dispute — -whether Vanston would have sold his product to Allied — -was marred by the erroneous introduction into evidence of the transcript of the taped conversation, as discussed in the original opinion. Just as this renders the jury’s determination improper as a basis for tort recovery, it also forecloses any award of contractual damages premised on the jury finding.
In addition, Vanston contends that the original opinion misapprehended the effect of a trial stipulation that Frank was called as “a neutral witness.” Vanston argues that this agreement of counsel removes this case from the realm of the rule that a party may not prostitute the exception to the hearsay rule permitting the use of prior inconsistent statements for the purpose of impeachment by intentionally offering a witness whose testimony he knows in advance will be adverse. We reject this contention.
Though the rule enunciated by Mississippi Derrow v. Durham, 444 F.2d 152 (5th Cir. 1971), had its origin in the common law notion that a party vouched for the credibility of the witnesses he called and was morally bound by their testimony, see 3A Wigmore on Evidence § 897-98 (Chadbourn Rev. 1970), it also serves to prevent the introduction of hearsay evidence with *347no more valid purpose than the hope that the jury may consider it as substantive evidence despite the judge’s contrary instructions. It remains transparent in this case that the exposure (of Frank’s hearsay statements) to the jury was Van-ston’s only purpose in offering the deposition and transcript of the 'telephone conversation.
Even assuming that a witness stipulated to be neutral is to be treated as a hostile witness for the purpose of allowing impeachment through hearsay, here there can be no contention that the transcript was introduced to repair the damage caused by surprise testimony. See, e.g., United States v. Gregory, 472 F.2d 484 (5th Cir. 1973); United States v. Dobbs, 448 F.2d 1262 (5th Cir. 1971); Mississippi for Use of Derrow v. Durham, supra. Any harm to Vanston’s cause which resulted from the reading of Frank’s deposition was intentionally self-inflicted. See Culwell v. United States, 194 F.2d 808 (5th Cir. 1952). On these facts the transcript of Frank’s telephone conversation was not properly admissible for any purpose.
The petition for rehearing is denied.