According to Dobbs, "he recovery is based on contract price, not on the contract price/market value differential so commonly used in sales cases. The burden of demonstrating the existence of similar employment is upon the employer. Should the District Court have mitigated the Plaintiff's damages? Dodenhoff considered the Plaintiff's filing of suit a "breach of their contract" and a "voluntary resignation." The District Court refused to mitigate the Plaintiff's damages by what he could have earned if employed by another company. Subsequent to the sale, on October 19, 1971, the Plaintiff filed suit to establish his rights under the contract. The Defendant sold all 31,000 shares of the stock in the Florida Subsidiary that it owned to a man name Dodenhoff. The Plaintiff was entitled to $18,000 per year in salary, a commission of 1% on his gross sales, and "a credit towards the purchase of stock in the Florida Subsidiary company." Up to 20% of the stock. The Defendant owned a substantial interest in a Florida subsidiary. Ballard (the "Plaintiff"), entered into an employment contract with the Defendant, El Dorado Tire Co. 260 (Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 4, California, 1986) Campbell 43 Cal.2d 298, 273 P.2d 15 (Supreme Court of California, In Bank. 2d 357, 40 A.L.R.4th 266(Supreme Court of Wisconsin) 636 (Court of Appeal, First District, Division 3, California 1985) Unocal Refining and Marketing 34 F.3d 462 (7th Cir. Stephenson 552 P.2d 1114 (Supreme Court of Wyoming, 1976) United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company 132 F.3d 612 (10th Cir.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |