Barta v. D'Iorio
| Citation | 114 R.I. 700,338 A.2d 515 |
| Decision Date | 04 June 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 73-184-A,73-184-A |
| Parties | Louis BARTA v. Louis J. D'IORIO d.b.a. Rhody Roofing Company. ppeal. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
The plaintiff in this civil action for breach of contract seeks to recover allegedly unpaid balances he claims are due him for services rendered as a salesman. The case was tried to a justice of the Superior Court sitting without a jury, who entered a judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of $1,245.58. From that judgment the plaintiff, contending that the damages awarded were grossly inadequate, is prosecuting an appeal to this court.
The record discloses that plaintiff had been employed as a salesman to solicit roofing jobs for defendant for some years. The defendant conducted a roofing business under the name of Rhody Roofing Company. In January 1967 the parties entered into a new contract to run for a term of 1 year wherein provisions were made for the amount of commissions to be paid plaintiff, the terms under which he would be paid a bonus, and, in particular, the payment of a special bonus where the business solicited resulted in an 'overage.' It would appear from the testimony that an 'overage' was the difference between the price at which a roofing job was listed and the amount in excess of that list price that plaintiff was able to persuade a purchaser to pay.
It is not disputed that plaintiff terminated his employment in September 1967. Neither is there any dispute that during that period sales made by plaintiff amounted to $43,020 and that the base commission to be paid him for such sales amounted to $8,604. The plaintiff further testified that he would have been entitled to a bonus of $1,075 and concedes that during 1967, through September, he was paid a total of $12,500 in compensation.
It is clear from the transcript that the testimony in this case is in sharp conflict with reference to the amounts due plaintiff on specific roofing jobs procured by him. During the term of the contract in 1967, plaintiff successfully solicited approximately 50 roofing jobs which were performed by defendant. The testimony relevant to these jobs, as we have noted, was in substantial conflict but, in particular, as to the precise amount of commission and 'overage' bonuses due plaintiff on many of these jobs.
We have here a situation in which the parties submitted the case on the law and the facts to a trial justice sitting without a jury, and it is well settled that in such circumstance his findings will be given great weight and will not be disturbed by this court unless clearly wrong. Fishbein...
To continue reading
Request your trial