Kaye v. Help Desk Now Inc.
Decision Date | 04 October 2010 |
Docket Number | No. 05-08-01708-CV.,05-08-01708-CV. |
Citation | 321 S.W.3d 806 |
Parties | KAYE/BASSMAN INTERNATIONAL CORP., Appellant, v. HELP DESK NOW, INC., Appellee. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.
Michael K. Hurst, Vanessa Jean Rush, Gruber Hurst Johansen & Hail LLP, Jason A. Copling, Munsch Hardt Kopf & Harr, P.C., Dallas, TX, for Appellant.
Alan Brandt Daughtry, Houston, TX, for Appellee.
Before Justices O'NEILL, LANG-MIERS, and FILLMORE.
This appeal arises from a dispute about whether appellee Help Desk NOW, Inc. is required to pay certain commissions to appellant Kaye/Bassman International Corp. After both sides moved for summary judgment, the trial court denied Kaye/Bassman's motion and granted summary judgment in favor of Help Desk NOW. On appeal, Kaye/Bassman argues that the trial court erred when it granted summary judgment in favor of Help Desk NOW and denied summary judgment in favor of Kaye/Bassman. We reverse the trial court's summary judgment in part, affirm in part, and remand this cause to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Help Desk NOW is in the call-center business and contracts with companies to provide call centers for customer service and technical support relating to a company's products or services. Kaye/Bassman is a recruiting and staffing firm that places sales people and executives with clients in various industries, including the call-center industry. According to Kaye/Bassman, it also brings business to its clients who run call centers by introducing those clients to Kaye/Bassman's industry contacts who are aware of companies that need a call center.
Matt Sherman and Synchronoss Technologies, Inc.
Although the parties apparently disagree about the purpose of the introduction, they agree that Kaye/Bassman introduced Help Desk NOW to a man named Matt Sherman. 1 Sherman subsequently introduced Help Desk NOW to Synchronoss Technologies, Inc., which ultimately became a call-center client of Help Desk NOW. In exchange for the client referral, Help Desk NOW agreed to pay a commission to Sherman.
Although the parties also apparently disagree about how, exactly, the agreement came about, they agree that in July 2004, around the time that Sherman introduced Help Desk NOW to Synchronoss, Kaye/Bassman and Help Desk NOW entered into a Call Center Business Agreement (the Original Agreement) governing Help Desk NOW's payment of commissions to Kaye/Bassman. 2 The Original Agreement states, in relevant part, as follows:
...
In October 2004, Synchronoss signed a call-center agreement with Help Desk NOW and became Help Desk NOW's biggest client. Pursuant to the terms of the Original Agreement, Help Desk NOW paid Kaye/Bassman 2.5% of the billed revenue from the Synchronoss account.
Over the next sixteen months, Sherman referred three other clients to Help Desk NOW. Help Desk NOW and Kaye/Bassman entered into two addenda to the Original Agreement to address the commissions to be paid to Kaye/Bassman from revenues generated from the first two of those three clients. They disagreed about whether Kaye/Bassman was entitled to any commission from the third client, CapGemini Energy. To resolve that dispute, the parties entered into a third addendum to the Original Agreement, in which Help Desk NOW agreed to pay Kaye/Bassman 1% of the billed revenue from the CapGemini Energy account. Six months later, in November 2005, the parties signed a fourth and final addendum (the Fourth Addendum) to the Original Agreement. The Fourth Addendum states, in relevant part, as follows:
...
Six months later, in May 2006, Help Desk NOW and Synchronoss entered into an agreement regarding call center services and pricing that superseded all previous agreements between them (the 2006 Synchronoss Agreement). 4 For the first few months after the 2006 Synchronoss Agreement was signed, Help Desk NOW continued to pay commissions to Kaye/Bassman for Synchronoss billed revenue.
After that, and for the next few months, Help Desk NOW did not pay those commissions to Kaye/Bassman but repeatedly assured Kaye/Bassman that it would continue to pay those commissions.
In early 2007 Help Desk NOW was sold. The buyers interpreted the Fourth Addendum to mean that it did not owe commissions to Kaye/Bassman for revenues generated from the Synchronoss relationship as of the date of the 2006 Synchronoss Agreement.
In May 2007, Help Desk NOW filed this lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgment “as to its rights and obligations with respect to Kaye/Bassman.” In its petition, Help Desk NOW states that because of the Fourth Addendum, Kaye/Bassman is not entitled to any commissions based on the 2006 Synchronoss Agreement. In response, Kaye/Bassman filed (1) an answer asserting a general denial and numerous affirmative defenses, including lack of consideration and (2) a breach-of-contract counterclaim seeking damages for unpaid Synchronoss commissions and attorneys' fees. In its amended answer and counterclaim, Kaye/Bassman alleges that, under the terms of the Original Agreement and the Fourth Addendum, Help Desk NOW is obligated to continue paying Kaye/Bassman 2.5% of all billed revenues generated from the Synchronoss account.
Help Desk NOW filed a traditional motion for summary judgment under rule of civil procedure 166a(c) in which it argued that it is not obligated to pay commissions to Kaye/Bassman for revenue generated as a result of the 2006 Synchronoss Agreement because of the terms of the Fourth Addendum. Help Desk NOW also filed a no-evidence motion for summary judgment under rule of civil procedure 166a(i) in which it asserted that there was no evidence to support Kaye/Bassman's counterclaim or certain elements of its affirmative defenses.
Kaye/Bassman filed a cross-motion for summary judgment under rule of civil procedure 166a(c) in which it asserted the same three grounds for summary judgment to support its affirmative claim for breach of contract and to oppose Help Desk NOW's competing claim for declaratory judgment: (1) Help Desk NOW breached the Original Agreement by failing to pay commissions on the Synchronoss account, (2) there was no consideration for the Fourth Addendum, and (3) the Fourth Addendum is ambiguous and extrinsic evidence conclusively demonstrates that the parties did not...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Main v. Royall
...each of the 79 grounds. See Tex.R. Civ. P. 166a(i) & cmt. (1997); Grant, 73 S.W.3d at 215; Kaye/Bassman Int'l Corp. v. Help Desk Now, Inc., 321 S.W.3d 806, 812 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2010, pet. denied). Royall filed a combined response to Main and Encounter's no-evidence and traditional motions f......
-
Mclernon v. Dynegy Inc.
...was required to raise a fact issue on lack of consideration. See Tex.R. Civ. P. 94; Kaye/Bassman Intern. Corp. v. Help Desk Now, Inc., 321 S.W.3d 806, 814 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2010, pet. denied).a. Consideration for the Note At the outset of the note, McLernon recited that his promise to pay th......
-
Jespersen v. Sweetwater Ranch Apartments
...(citing Straffus v. Barclay, 147 Tex. 600, 603, 219 S.W.2d 65, 66 (1949)); see also Kaye/Bassman Int'l Corp. v. Help Desk Now, Inc., 321 S.W.3d 806, 814 n. 6 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2010, pet. denied) (alternative pleading in counterclaim did not constitute judicial admission); Montague Cnty. v. H......
-
MGA Ins. Co. v. Charles R. Chesnutt, P.C.
...de novo. Tex. Mun. Power Agency v. Pub. Util. Comm'n, 253 S.W.3d 184, 192 (Tex.2007); Kaye/Bassman Int'l Corp. v. Help Desk Now, Inc., 321 S.W.3d 806, 812 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2010, pet. denied). We will affirm a summary judgment if the record establishes that there is no genuine issue of mater......