Court Opinion

ID: 9732972
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 16:46:58.910139+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:36.704093
License: Public Domain

HANSON, Judge
(dissenting).
I am unable to agree.
Our disposition does not require a review of the facts to determine their sufficiency. In my opinion there is a primary legal question involved, i. e., the interpretation of the contract.
The contract entered into by the parties was prepared by defendant Hatterscheidt. Although a bilateral contract, its benefits are unilaterally in favor of its author.
The contract is silent as to the property owners’ right to rescind the contract before its expiration date. Apparently, if they did terminate or rescind, they would subject themselves to an action for damages for breach of the contract. However, the contract gives Hatterscheidt the right to terminate the contract at any time and in that event he would be entitled to future commissions and rentals. The contract provision in this regard reads as follows:
“All parties hereto agree that this agreement shall remain in full force and effect for a period of five (5) years, and it is expressly agreed that F. W. Hatterscheidt shall have the right to terminate his duties as Agent hereunder by giving thirty (30) days notice in writing to the Grantors. In the event of the termination of the services of F. W. Hatterscheidt, as above provided, said F. W. Hatterscheidt shall, nevertheless, be entitled to the commission agreed upon of all rentals under leases now in force *573and leases made during the term of his service under this agreement.” (emphasis supplied)
Construing the contract as it reads, Hatterscheidt is entitled to future commissions and rentals when, and only when, he terminates the contract before its expiration date. As he did not terminate the contract this clause is not applicable and he is not entitled to receive credit for future rentals and commissions.
I would reverse.