American Agr. Chemical Co. v. Rhodes
| Decision Date | 26 February 1913 |
| Citation | 77 S.E. 582,139 Ga. 495 |
| Parties | AMERICAN AGRICULTURAL CHEMICAL CO. v. RHODES. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
Where a dealer in fertilizers contracts with a salesman to sell his goods within a designated territory for a given term, and that the salesman shall receive as his commission a certain sum on the number of tons sold, reserving the right to the dealer to pass upon the credit of the customers procured by the salesman, and also upon the amount of tonnage to be sold in that territory, and where the salesman on the faith of such contract and in pursuance of its execution solicits orders for fertilizers and is discharged without cause, the dealer is liable in damages to the salesman for an unauthorized breach of the contract. Baldwin v Marqueze, 91 Ga. 404, 18 S.E. 309.
(a) It would be an unauthorized breach of such contract (1) if the dealer, upon demand, refused to furnish the salesman with a list of prices of fertilizers to be sold, and, after orders were obtained by the salesman from customers for fertilizers at the market price, to capriciously refuse to fill them; (2) to discharge the salesman without cause before his term expired.
(b) It would not be a breach of the contract if the dealer in good faith, upon reasonable grounds, should reject orders for fertilizers procured by the salesman in the territory specified in the contract.
Where there is a contract of the character above specified, which is breached by the employer in the manner indicated, and the salesman sues for damages, alleged to consist of loss of profits which he would have earned directly under the contract, but for its breach, he may recover them, if the evidence furnishes reasonable data for computation. Civil Code 1910, § 4394; Baldwin v. Marqueze, 91 Ga. 404 18 S.E. 309; Schumaker v. Heinemann, 99 Wis. 251, 74 N.W. 785; Spencer Medicine Co. v. Hall, 78 Ark. 336 93 S.W. 985; Brigham v. Carlisle, 78 Ala. 243, 56 Am.Rep. 28. The ruling here made is not in conflict with the decisions of this court in S. A. L. Ry. v. Harris, 121 Ga. 707, 49 S.E. 703, Anderson v. Hilton & Dodge Lumber Co., 121 Ga. 688 (3), 49 S.E. 725, Cooper v Young, 22 Ga. 269, 68 Am.Dec. 502, Clay v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 81 Ga. 285, 6 S.E. 813, 12 Am.St.Rep. 316, and other similar cases, holding that profits which might have been derived from some other or collateral contracts are not recoverable.
Under the principles announced in the preceding notes, the petition was not subject to general demurrer, based on the ground that the alleged contract was too indefinite, or that the damages laid were remote and speculative in character.
The grounds of special demurrer were without merit.
The suit was not on the contract, but was for damages as for breach of contract, based on the alleged unlawful discharge of the plaintiff by the defendant. It was proper, therefore to decline a request to charge to the effect that the jury could not consider the loss of certain portions of the commissions which would have been earned except for the breach of the contract, merely because a suit to recover to the commissions as such under the contract would be premature.
Under one phase of the case, there being evidence to authorize it it was erroneous, on appropriate request, to refuse to charge: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial