American Agronomics Corp. v. Ross, 74--896

Decision Date25 March 1975
Docket NumberNo. 74--896,74--896
PartiesAMERICAN AGRONOMICS CORPORATION, Appellant, v. James E. ROSS, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Weithorn & Mazloff, Coral Gables, for appellant.

Barrett, Diliberto & Estrumsa, Miami, for appellee.

Before HENDRY, HAVERFIELD and NATHAN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant-appellant appeals a final judgment entered in favor of plaintiff-appellee in this action to recover for a breach of employment contract.

Plaintiff-appellee, James Ross, entered into an employment contract with defendant-appellant, American Agronomics Corporation, whereby plaintiff assumed the position of director of broker/dealer sales for Farmers Equity Corporation, defendant's wholly owned subsidiary and sales arm. The subject contract read in part as follows:

'This letter confirms our verbal agreement on the terms of your employment by American Agronomics Corporation as Director of NASD Broker/Dealer sales for Farmers Equity Corporation commencing November 15, 1971.

'We have agreed your performance under this agreement will be reviewed on or about March 31, July 31 and November 30, 1972. Sales levels of $600,000, $1,200,000 and $2,400,000 respectively by said dates, have been mutually agreed to be realistic and achievable, the achievement of which goals shall be the factor in determining the future continuation of your employment.

'Should your employment under this agreement continue, the terms of the employment will be subject to review on or about November 1, 1972, conditioned however, on the fact that said renewal shall not be for compensation less than that which is granted in paragraphs one, two, three and four above. Should your employment under this agreement terminate, you will be entitled to the commissions on sales, as herein defined, initiated during your employment and fully effected within ninety days of termination date.'

Defendant-appellant terminated plaintiff on March 3, 1972 for failing to follow directives even though plaintiff had achieved a sales total in excess of $600,000. Thereafter, plaintiff filed a complaint for breach of contract and alleged therein that defendant owed him $14,100 in salary and $2,755 in commissions. The cause proceeded to a non-jury trial. Thereafter, the trial court entered judgment in favor of plaintiff and awarded him $14,000 for unpaid salary, $2,775 for the balance of commissions due and owing plaintiff and costs. This appeal follows.

Defendant first...

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 cases
  • In re Standard Jury Instructions—Contract & Business Cases
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • June 6, 2013
    ...contract and chose the wording. Vienneau v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 548 So.2d 856 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Am. Agronomics Corp. v. Ross, 309 So.2d 582 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). “To the extent any ambiguity exists in the interpretation of [a] contract, it will be strictly construed against the dra......
  • Bonar v. Barnett Bank of Jacksonville, NA
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida
    • March 31, 1980
    ...98, 24 So.2d 906 (1946); MacIntyre v. Green's Pool Service, 347 So.2d 1081 (Fla. 3d Dist.Ct.App.1977); American Agronomics Corp. v. Ross, 309 So.2d 582 (Fla. 3d Dist.Ct.App.1975); Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Washington Federal Savings and Loan, 214 So.2d 492 (Fla. 3d Dist.Ct.App.1968). See a......
  • Jaar v. University of Miami
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • February 12, 1985
    ...Data Lease Financial Corp., 302 So.2d 404 (Fla.1974); Welsh v. Carroll, 378 So.2d 1255 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); American Agronomics Corporation v. Ross, 309 So.2d 582 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). The parties by their actions over the years have treated persons, such as Dr. Ward, as being employed by the ......
  • Vienneau v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • September 13, 1989
    ...is not completely at variance with the principles of correct legal interpretation of the contract provisions. American Agronomics Corp. v. Ross, 309 So.2d 582 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 321 So.2d 558 (Fla.1975); Bouden v. Walker, 266 So.2d 353 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972). The court may also consid......
  • 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