McMorrow v. Rodman Ford Sales, Inc., Civ. A. No. 78-0025-C.

Decision Date04 January 1979
Docket NumberCiv. A. No. 78-0025-C.
Citation462 F. Supp. 947
PartiesWilliam J. McMORROW, Plaintiff, v. RODMAN FORD SALES, INC., Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts

Richard H. Sadowski, Boston, Mass., for plaintiff.

Robert F. Murphy, Pinta & Murphy, Boston, Mass., for defendant.

OPINION

CAFFREY, Chief Judge.

This is a civil action in which plaintiff, a resident of the State of Rhode Island, seeks money damages and equitable relief against defendant, a Massachusetts corporation with its principal place of business in Massachusetts. Jurisdiction of this Court is based on 28 U.S.C.A. § 1331(a)(1). After a non-jury trial, I find and rule as follows:

Plaintiff William J. McMorrow is a resident of Rhode Island who has been engaged in the business of selling heavy trucks, particularly tractor-trailer equipment, during the period from 1970 to date. In late spring, 1977, plaintiff was contacted by a representative of defendant, a Ford automotive dealership, and negotiations began between plaintiff, Donald Rodman, President of defendant, and one Manny Rubenstein, General Manager of defendant.

I find that Donald Rodman desired to extend the business of defendant Rodman Ford Sales, Inc., into the heavy truck field. I further find that in the late spring of 1977 when negotiations between the parties began neither Rodman, Rubenstein nor any other employee of defendant was knowledgeable or experienced in selling heavy tractor-trailer equipment. I find that contrariwise plaintiff was knowledgeable and experienced in selling heavy-duty trucks with a gross vehicle weight in excess of 26,000 pounds. It is likewise clear on the record that Rodman was desirous of acquiring a person with plaintiff's experience to become manager of a heavy truck sales department or division of Rodman Ford Sales, Inc.

Plaintiff met several times with either Donald Rodman, Manny Rubenstein, or both, for the purpose of providing defendant with his resume, discussing his knowledge of the heavy truck field, and discussing terms of possible employment of plaintiff by Rodman Ford Sales, Inc. I find that ultimately at a meeting held in early July of 1977 plaintiff and Rodman Ford Sales, Inc., entered into an oral contract executed on behalf of Rodman Ford Sales, Inc., by its president Donald Rodman. I find that this contract called for plaintiff to become employed by defendant as manager of a heavy truck sales department for a period of one year, and I further find that defendant agreed that plaintiff's compensation for the one-year period would be a salary of $600 a week, plus the use of an automobile and medical insurance coverage. It was further made a part of the oral contract that at the end of six months Donald Rodman would submit to plaintiff an alternative way of compensating plaintiff during the second...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Frederick v. ConAgra, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts
    • May 8, 1989
    ...454, 458, 70 N.E.2d 414 (1946). 6 The cases cited by ConAgra in its Reply Brief are not to the contrary. In McMorrow v. Rodman Ford Sales, Inc., 462 F.Supp. 947, 949 (D.Mass.1979), then Chief Judge Caffrey of this District found as matter of fact that the plaintiff had neither established a......
  • Barnia v. Kaur
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts
    • December 5, 2022
    ...year before becoming eligible to receive the bonus. Defendants' reliance on McMorrow v. Rodman Ford Sales, Inc., is misplaced. 462 F.Supp. 947, 948 (D. Mass. 1979). McMorrow, the oral contract explicitly called for an employment period of one year and was set to begin in the future. Id. The......
  • McCormack v. Commissioner
    • United States
    • United States Tax Court
    • January 6, 1987
    ...was oral and was not to be performed within a year. Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 259, sec. 1, cl. 5 (West 1980); McMorrow v. Rodman Ford Sales, Inc., 462 F.Supp. 947 (D. Mass. 1979); Richard Tucker Associates, Inc. v. Smith, 395 Mass. 648, 481 N.E. 2d 489 3 The petitioner relies on Rev. Rul. 68......
  • Powers v. Boston Cooper Corp.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
    • February 7, 1991
    ...v. Doherty Ins. Agency, Inc., 878 F.2d 546, 552 (1st Cir.1989) (applying Massachusetts law) (dictum); McMorrow v. Rodman Ford Sales, Inc., 462 F.Supp. 947, 948-49 (D.Mass.1979) (applying Massachusetts law); Johnson Clinic, Inc. v. Huffnagle, 2 Mass.App.Ct. 837, 310 N.E.2d 628, 629 (1974); s......
  • 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