Court Opinion

ID: 9641004
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:20:47.168905+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:34.537128
License: Public Domain

ROBERTS, Justice,
with whom GLASSMAN and CLIFFORD, JJ., join, dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. The trial court found that section 626 was not applicable because, inter alia, the undisputed testimony established that the computation of Purdy’s commissions for each calendar year was complicated and usually took several months of joint effort to accomplish. Purdy’s response to CTC’s offer concerning the 1990 commissions was simply a demand for payment in full of an unspecified amount rather than a submission of his own calculations. Given *30the customary conduct of these parties with regard to Purdy’s commissions, I agree with the trial court’s refusal to apply section 626. The literal application of section 626 in these circumstances leads to the absurd conclusion that CTC must perform the usually complicated task in two weeks or risk liability for triple the amount due plus attorney fees. I would affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.