Court Opinion

ID: 9637074
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 14:55:56.867458+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:09:52.973062
License: Public Domain

NORTHCOTT, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
I am of the opinion that the judgment should be affirmed. It is undisputed that the agents of the defendant company made the promise to the Kirkmyer Motor Company as alleged in the declaration. It is undisputed that relying on this promise and the good faith of the agents of the defendant company, the plaintiff made certain expenditures and incurred certain obligations in preparing to conduct the agency in South Richmond. The promise to make the plaintiff an agent in West Richmond, if another agency was placed there, even though the contract of agency could be rescinded at will, was of sufficient value, or at least it was so considered by the plaintiff, to induce the expenditure made. The oral agreement was entirely separate and apart from the written contract with regard to the South Richmond agency. The oral agreement was broken by the defendant’s agents without reason and while the president of the plaintiff company was protesting his, willingness to do everything that might be required to secure the West Richmond agency. In wanton violation of the agreement entered into, an agent other than plaintiff was placed in West Richmond, the location from which plaintiff was forced to- move, practically by coercion.
While the profits that plaintiff might have made from the West Richmond agency are perhaps too vague to be definitely ascertained, there is ample authority to the effect that plaintiff should be allowed to recover at least the expenditures made in reliance upon the promise. 17 C. J. 800; 8 R. C. L. 495, and cases there cited. The jury fixed this recovery in its verdiet at $21,202.92. There was ample evidence to support this verdiet.