Court Opinion

ID: 9735838
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 18:32:21.593831+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:27:01.891571
License: Public Domain

LESLIE, Judge
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. I agree with the majority that St. Cloud Aviation, Inc. v. Hubbell, 356 N.W.2d 749 (Minn.Ct.App.1984) is determinative here. I concur with application of the rule that agents are not liable for the excess of advances beyond commissions in the absence of an agreement to the contrary and the rationale behind the rule detailed in the majority opinion. Where the majority and I diverge is on the question of the existence of an agreement to repay these advances in this case. I believe the language of the agency contract signed by the parties constitutes such an agreement.
Paragraph 10 of the parties’ contract provides for an offset of current indebtedness on future earnings. Paragraph 14 specifically provides that “[tjermination shall not relieve Agent or his estate of any indebtedness or other liability to the Company or General Agent arising hereunder.” By signing the contract Cram expressly agreed to repay any debts not offset by earnings at the time of termination. Because such an agreement was made, the general rule that such advances are not recoverable does not control. I would affirm.