McClure v. Leasco Computer, Inc.

• Decision Date: 21 May 1975
• Docket Number: No. 50415,No. 2,50415,2
• Citation: 134 Ga.App. 871,216 S.E.2d 689
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals
• Parties: D. L. McCLURE v. LEASCO COMPUTER, INC

Page 689

216 S.E.2d 689

134 Ga.App. 871

D. L. McCLURE v. LEASCO COMPUTER, INC.

No. 50415.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 2.

May 21, 1975.

Henning, Chambers & Mabry, Edward J. Henning, Frederick W. Johnson, Atlanta, for appellant.

Cotton, Katz & White, J. Timothy White, Gerald H. White, Atlanta, for appellee.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court

QUILLIAN, Judge.

The plaintiff, appellant here, filed suit against the defendant, appellee here, alleging that it had breached a contract of employment. The defendant filed its answer and a motion for judgment on the pleadings. The motion was heard by the trial judge who granted the defendant's motion and ordered judgment against the plaintiff. Appeal was taken from that judgment. Held:

The plaintiff's complaint as amended alleged that the defendant employed the plaintiff pursuant to the terms of the letter of agreement; that in discussions prior to entering into employment with the defendant, defendant's agent specifically represented to the plaintiff that the defendant intended to market its services as it was then doing for many years and the plaintiff relied upon such representation in accepting his employment; that the plaintiff began his employment on October 1, 1973 and was terminated by the defendant on November 30, 1973, only two months later; that the plaintiff performed his services 'extremely well' and was not terminated due to any reason whatsoever for failure to perform his employment with defendant. The plaintiff sought recovery as damages the amount of his base salary which was alleged to be $22,000 less the amount of $5,784.49 paid to him, a sum in the amount of $16,215.51, plus loss of commissions, benefits, attorney fees, interest, loss of future income and loss of credit.

The agreement between the defendant and the plaintiff contained the following pertinent provisions: '(4) Marketing Responsibilities-1973 (December 31, 1973)- To obtain a minimum of $585,000 in Finance Leases in 1973, such as trade ups with existing Lessees or Finance Leases on Computer Equipment and Capital Equipment. (5) Compensation Program-a. Guaranteed Annual Income-$22,000 to be paid in the following manner: b. Salary-$17,000 per annum, or $1,417.00 per month with a draw against commissions monthly at the following amounts: First three months $1,000.00 per month. Next six months $335.00 per month. c. The draw against commission will be non-recoverable by Leasco for the first three months, and all commissions earned will be paid as earned. After three months, the draw will be charged to commissions paid. d. Commissions payable under Leasco's approved Incentive Plan.'

While the agreement provided that the employment began on October 1, 1973, there was no specific language indicating the time the agreement would run.

The defendant cites Land v. Delta Air Lines, 130 Ga.App. 231, 203 S.E.2d 316, as authority for the proposition where plaintiff seeks to recover on the basis of a 'permanent' contract and the contract could not amount to such it will be held to be terminable at will. In such case the plaintiff would only be able to recover for the term for which the wages were payable, which in this case the defendant contends was one month. See also Ely v. Stratoflex, Inc., 132 Ga.App. 569, 570, 208 S.E.2d 583.

A clear expression of the principles to be applied with regard to employment contracts is found in the early case of Magarahan v. Wright & Lamkin, 83 Ga. 773, 777, 10 S.E. 584, 585: 'Where a person is hired to serve another, without any agreement as to the duration of service, there is no inflexible rule of law as to the length of time the...