RLM Associates, Inc. v. Carter Manufacturing Corp.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

RLM Associates, Inc. v. Carter Manufacturing Corp.

248 N.E.2d 646, 356 Mass. 718

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedJune 2, 1969

StatusPublished

Cited by22 cases

This text of 248 N.E.2d 646 (RLM Associates, Inc. v. Carter Manufacturing Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

RLM Associates, Inc. v. Carter Manufacturing Corp., 248 N.E.2d 646, 356 Mass. 718 (Mass. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

The plaintiff (RLM) became manufacturer’s representative of the defendant (Carter) in a territory including Philadelphia. RLM was entitled to a commission on all Carter’s sales in the territory. Either Carter or RLM could terminate the arrangement on thirty days notice. After thirteen months of slight RLM success, Carter terminated RLM’s representation only a few days before bids were to be opened by a Navy office in Philadelphia on an invitation to bid, discovered by RLM and brought by it to Carter’s attention. On it RLM had expended some sales effort. Carter received the award. In this action by RLM to recover a commission the trial judge correctly refused to direct a verdict for Carter and to give certain instructions requested by Carter. The evidence permitted the conclusion that Carter’s termination of the arrangement was in part based upon a desire to avoid paying a commission to RLM. The existence of such a motive would permit an inference that the termination was in bad faith. The charge and the denial of Carter’s requests were consistent with principles stated in Malloy v. Coldwater Seafood Corp. 338 Mass. 554, 561-564. RLM, entitled to a commission on any sale in the territory, was not bound to show to what extent it had contributed to obtaining the award, although the evidence warranted the conclusion that RLM’s efforts were as significant in this respect as could reasonably have been possible in this type of government procurement.

Exceptions overruled.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The plaintiff (RLM) became manufacturer’s representative of the defendant (Carter) in a territory including Philadelphia. RLM was entitled to a commission on all Carter’s sales in the territory. Either Carter or RLM could terminate the arrangement on thirty days notice. After thirteen months of slight RLM success, Carter terminated RLM’s representation only a few days before bids were to be opened by a Navy office in Philadelphia on an invitation to bid, discovered by RLM and brought by it to Carter’s attention. On it RLM had expended some sales effort. Carter received the award. In this action by RLM to recover a commission the trial judge correctly refused to direct a verdict for Carter and to give certain instructions requested by Carter. The evidence permitted the conclusion that Carter’s termination of the arrangement was in part based upon a desire to avoid paying a commission to RLM. The existence of such a motive would permit an inference that the termination was in bad faith. The charge and the denial of Carter’s requests were consistent with principles stated in Malloy v. Coldwater Seafood Corp. 338 Mass. 554, 561-564. RLM, entitled to a commission on any sale in the territory, was not bound to show to what extent it had contributed to obtaining the award, although the evidence warranted the conclusion that RLM’s efforts were as significant in this respect as could reasonably have been possible in this type of government procurement.

Exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 N.E.2d 646, 356 Mass. 718, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rlm-associates-inc-v-carter-manufacturing-corp-mass-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack