LIND V. SCHENLEY INDUSTRIES 278 F.2d 79 (3rd Cir. 1960) CASE BRIEF

LIND V. SCHENLEY INDUSTRIES

278 F.2d 79 (3rd Cir. 1960)

NATURE OF THE CASE: This was an appeal from the denial of damages in a breach of contract action and from the granting of a motion notwithstanding the verdict and an alternative motion for a new trial after the jury verdict.

FACTS: Lind (P) brought this action against Schenley (D), to recover commissions allegedly due as a result of oral promises made by agents of D. In July 1951, Kaufman, the boss, informed P that he was to receive 1% commission on the gross sales of the men under him. The V.P. of sales for the company also informed P of the same deal for commissions on the gross sales of the men under him. P then negotiated with Brown the then president of Park and Tilford for the sale of a Whole Sale House. Brown agreed to apply the money owed to P by reasons of the 1% commission agreements against the value of the good will of the Whole Sale House. The sale of the Whole Sale House was never consummated. Various evidence of P's records was produced but the one document dealing with P's appointment as district manager was never produced. D moved for a directed verdict but the judge refused to consider the issue at that point and reserved the right to rule on a motion to dismiss at a later time. The jury found a contract and gave a damage award to P. D moved for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial. The trial court granted the judgment n.o.v.; P had failed to prove a case of apparent authority and the issues of actual and implied authority had been eliminated from the case and even if there was implied authority the contract was not definite nor specific enough to be enforced. P appealed.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner