Holland v. Tandem Computers Inc.

Decision Date05 April 1995
Docket NumberNo. 94-2090,94-2090
Citation49 F.3d 1287
Parties10 IER Cases 1787 Timothy W. HOLLAND, Appellant, v. TANDEM COMPUTERS INCORPORATED, a Delaware Corporation, Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Burton W. Newman, Clayton, MO, argued (Burton W. Newman and Barry S. Ginsburg on the brief), for appellant.

Thomas M. Hanna, Stanley G. Schroeder and James N. Foster, Jr., St. Louis, MO, for appellee.

Before McMILLIAN, LOKEN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Timothy W. Holland appeals from the district court's 1 grant of judgment as a matter of law in favor of Tandem Computers, Incorporated (Tandem) in this diversity action. We affirm.

Following termination from his position as national sales manager for Tandem, Holland filed this complaint asserting that he had not been paid the reasonable value of his services for negotiating a multi-year contract, consummated shortly before his termination, for the sale of computer-related services. He sought recovery only on the basis of quantum meruit and unjust enrichment. Tandem answered that Holland, an at-will employee, had been paid all sums due under the parties' express, written compensation agreement. The case was tried to a jury and, at the close of Holland's evidence, the district court granted Tandem's motion for judgment as a matter of law.

We review de novo a district court's decision to grant judgment as a matter of law, Medtronic, Inc. v. ConvaCare, Inc., 17 F.3d 252, 255 (8th Cir.1994), and affirm if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant and affording it all reasonable inferences therefrom, the evidence presented was insufficient to support a jury verdict in the nonmovant's favor. Abbott v. City of Crocker, 30 F.3d 994, 997 (8th Cir.1994). We review de novo the district court's interpretation of state law. Paul v. Farmland Indus., Inc., 37 F.3d 1274, 1277 (8th Cir.1994).

Under Missouri law, recovery in quantum meruit is ordinarily limited to the agreed-upon price for the goods or services. See, e.g., Bash v. B.C. Constr. Co., Inc., 780 S.W.2d 697, 698 (Mo.Ct.App.1989) (general rule). In general, a person employed to solicit sales orders on a commission basis is entitled to commissions when an order is accepted by that person's employer, but this rule may be altered by a written agreement between the parties. Slusher v. Mid-America Broadcasting, Inc., 811 S.W.2d 443, 444-47 (Mo.Ct.App.1991) (distinguishing contract for sale of goods in one discrete transaction from contract requiring continuing services over time; contract was of latter type, and compensation agreement unambiguously provided plaintiff was not entitled to commissions on amounts received after discharge). The district court correctly concluded that the compensation agreement unambiguously provided that Holland would be paid no commissions after his termination. See Simpson v. Maxon Sys., Inc., 886 S.W.2d 92, 93-94 (Mo.Ct.App.1994).

Missouri does not limit quantum meruit recovery to the contract price if one party was prevented from substantially completing performance by another party's breach, or the parties abandoned the contract. Oliver L. Taetz, Inc. v. Groff, 363 Mo. 825, 253 S.W.2d 824, 828-29 (1953) (party's breach which prevents other party's performance creates exception to general rule); cf. Fuhler v. Gohman & Levine Constr. Co., 346 Mo. 588, 142 S.W.2d 482, 484 (1940) (abandonment of contract creates exception to general rule further limiting recovery). We have reviewed the evidence Holland presented, and we agree with the district court that Holland did not show that he and Tandem abandoned the contract for his at-will employment, or that Tandem did not allow him to complete...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Sherman v. Berkadia Commercial Mortg. LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri
    • 15 Enero 2019
    ...from fulfilling an employment contract because he has been discharged in violation of that very contract. See Holland v. Tandem Computers Inc., 49 F.3d 1287, 1289 (8th Cir. 1995). As in Holland, however, Sherman does not have evidence to show he was wrongfully discharged or that his at-will......
  • McKay v. WilTel Communication Systems, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • 2 Agosto 1996
    ...judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial or in refusing to instruct the jury on a benefit to WilTel. Holland v. Tandem Computers Inc., 49 F.3d 1287, 1288 (8th Cir.1995) (denial of motion for judgment as matter of law reviewed de novo with evidence viewed in light most favorable to no......
  • Collins v. Veolia Es Indus. Servs., Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri
    • 14 Diciembre 2015
    ...and unambiguous employment agreement may limit an employee's recovery under quasi-contractual theories. See Holland v. Tandem Computers Inc., 49 F.3d 1287, 1288 (8th Cir. 1995) (plaintiff's quantum meruit recovery was limited to the compensation provided in the parties' unambiguous employme......
  • Al-Khaldiya Electronics and Elec. Equip. Co. v. Boeing
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • 7 Julio 2009
    ...theories. Express terms of an unambiguous agreement preclude quantum meruit and unjust enrichment claims. Holland v. Tandem Computers Inc., 49 F.3d 1287, 1289 (8th Cir. 1995). Al-Khaldiya relies on Boyd v. Margolin, 421 S.W.2d 761, 768 (Mo.1967) for the proposition that express terms of a c......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT