Faulkner v. Des Moines Drug Co.

• Decision Date: 20 May 1902
• Parties: FAULKNER v. DES MOINES DRUG CO.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

117 Iowa 120

90 N.W. 585

FAULKNER

v.DES MOINES DRUG CO.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

May 20, 1902.

Appeal from district court, Polk county; C. A. Bishop, Judge.

Action at law for damages upon a contract for employment of the plaintiff by defendant Judgment for defendant upon demurrer to petition, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.Geo. W. Shaffer and Thos. F. Stevenson, for appellant.

Cummins, Hewitt & Wright, for appellee.

WEAVER, J.

Plaintiff's petition alleges his employment by defendant under a written contract made in the following words: “This article of agreement, made and entered into this 1st day of January, 1900, A. D., by and between the Des Moines Drug Company, party of the first part, and Dr. E. E. Faulkner, party of the second part, witnesseth: That the said Des Moines Drug Company does hereby employ the said Dr. E. E. Faulkner to take charge of their surgical supply department, which is to be located in room No. 218, Second street, Des Moines, Iowa, upon the following terms and conditions, to wit: “It is agreed that Dr. E. E. Faulkner is to receive for his compensation 25 per cent. of the net profits derived from the sales in this department after all the expenses of operating the department have been deducted. In case of any credit loss, said loss is to be borne in same proportion, namely, Des Moines Drug Company 75 per cent., and Dr. E. E. Faulkner 25 per cent. The profits of this department are to be figured at the end of each month, and said Dr. E. E. Faulkner is to receive at the close of each month his proportion of the net profits, not to exceed in one month $200.00. This contract in effect until mutually agreed void. Signed this day and date. Des Moines Drug Company, M. S. Sherman, Secretary. E. E. Faulkner.” In pursuance of this agreement plaintiff alleges that he entered the service of defendant January 1, 1900, and continued therein till April 5th of the same year, when defendant, without cause, wrongfully discharged him. He further says that since his discharge he has made diligent and proper effort to obtain other employment, but has failed so to do without fault on his part, and alleges that by defendant's violation of the contract he has been damaged in the sum of $2,000, for which he asks judgment.

The demurrer to this pleading is based on the following grounds: (1) That the contract provides for perpetual employment, and is void as against public policy; (2) that it is too indefinite and uncertain as to the period of employment to support a cause of action; (3) because the damages are based on a loss of profits of goods to be sold in the future; and (4) because the contract is void for uncertainty.

Of these grounds, the arguments of counsel are largely directed to the second and fourth, both involving the question whether the writing sued upon is sufficiently definite to constitute an enforceable contract. It is a familiar proposition that a contract, to have any binding force or effect in law, must be sufficiently definite and certain in its terms to furnish a criterion whereby the damages recoverable for a breach thereof can be ascertained. Howard v. Railroad Co. (Ala.) 8 South. 868. In the case cited it is said: “The law does not favor, but leans against, the destruction of contracts because of uncertainty; but, when contracts are so vague and indefinite in terms that the intention of the parties cannot be fairly and reasonably collected from them, the courts will not undertake to give them effect.” In a...