Schwarze Industries, Inc. v. Worthy
| Decision Date | 24 January 1992 |
| Citation | 595 So.2d 895 |
| Parties | SCHWARZE INDUSTRIES, INC. v. Robert WORTHY. 2900462. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
William J. Gibbons, Jr. of Sirote & Permutt, P.C., Huntsville, for appellant.
George K. Williams of Watson, Gammons & Fees, P.C., Huntsville, for appellee.
From July 1988, until April 1989, Robert Worthy worked as general sales manager for Schwarze Industries, Inc. (Schwarze), which manufactures and sells industrial sweepers to airports, shopping malls, and government entities. Worthy's compensation consisted of a base weekly salary plus a 1.5% commission on gross sales.
Worthy's employment was terminated in April 1989, and, subsequently, he sued Schwarze for breach of contract, alleging that Schwarze owed him over $7600 in commissions for the sale of sweepers which were ordered during his employment with Schwarze but which were invoiced and delivered to the customers after his termination.
After considering the testimony, the trial court awarded Worthy $7019 plus costs. Schwarze then filed a motion for new trial or to alter, amend, or vacate the judgment, and for findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court denied this motion and Schwarze appealed.
Schwarze first argues that Worthy was not entitled to commissions from orders obtained during his employment that were invoiced and shipped after Worthy's termination of employment.
We note that, although the record indicates that the employment contract between Worthy and Schwarze was introduced into evidence at trial, the contract is not physically before us for examination. We also note that when a trial court makes no specific findings of fact, as is the case here, the reviewing court assumes that the trial court made the necessary findings to support its judgment, unless such findings would have been clearly erroneous and against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. Rhoden v. Miller, 495 So.2d 54 (Ala.1986). Furthermore, "a judgment rendered in a nonjury case tried ore tenus is accorded a presumption of correctness that can only be reversed if 'plainly and palpably wrong.' " Etheridge v. Yeager, 465 So.2d 378, 380 (Ala.1985).
In Head & Co. v. Rolling, 265 Ala. 328, 338, 90 So.2d 828, 837 (1956), our supreme court stated:
"The general rule in cases presenting questions similar to the one before us seems to be that where the contract provides that the employee will be paid commissions, or share the profits on sales and contracts procured by him, he is entitled to the agreed compensation on those orders which he procured or negotiated, even though his services were terminated before the contract or sale is completed by performance, unless he is precluded by the express terms of the contract."
The trial court heard the testimony and had the opportunity to review the employment contract for any express terms or provisions which would have precluded Worthy's recovery. Worthy testified that the sales in question were procured while he was general sales manager for Schwarze, but that the sweepers were not invoiced and delivered until after his termination. This testimony was confirmed by Mark Schwarze, the president of Schwarze, who negotiated Worthy's employment contract on behalf of the company. Testimony from Mark Schwarze revealed that Schwarze's standard business practice was to pay salesmen a commission based on the invoice date, not on the date of the original order. Therefore, Schwarze argues that whoever was the salesman on the invoice date would receive the sales commission, even if that person was...
To continue reading
Request your trial