Taylor v. Carlberg Supply, Inc.

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Taylor v. Carlberg Supply, Inc.

499 So. 2d 1116, 1986 La. App. LEXIS 7793

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedOctober 8, 1986

DocketNo. 85-1093

StatusPublished

This text of 499 So. 2d 1116 (Taylor v. Carlberg Supply, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Taylor v. Carlberg Supply, Inc., 499 So. 2d 1116, 1986 La. App. LEXIS 7793 (La. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

YELVERTON, Judge.

Christopher Brett Taylor filed suit against his former employer, Carlberg Supply, Inc., for alleged unpaid commissions as well as penalties and attorney’s fees. From a judgment in favor of the defendant dismissing plaintiff’s suit, plaintiff appeals. We affirm.

Plaintiff was employed by the defendant supply company from October 18, 1982, until April 18, 1984, as an outside salesman. He was paid a $1500 monthly draw to be applied against his commissions. The parties originally agreed that should plaintiff ever leave the defendant’s employ, he would not be entitled to any commissions [1117]*1117beyond the date of his leaving. However, in April 1984 Carlberg and the plaintiff entered into a different agreement. The terms of this verbal agreement make up the dispute in this case. Plaintiff testified that in the early part of April, after he announced he was leaving, he agreed to train new personnel and that in return Carlberg agreed to extend his commission statements through the months of May and June with April as the final closing month. Plaintiff argues that under the terms of this later agreement the defendant owes him commissions for May and June 1984.

Carlberg stated that he did agree to extend plaintiffs commission statements through June but that this was conditioned on plaintiff staying until the end of April. Plaintiff left on April 18 at noon. Due to this early departure Carlberg declared that he felt the subsequent agreement never became effective and he paid plaintiff only the April commission.

The trial court evidently believed Carl-berg’s version of the oral agreement, and determined that plaintiff was not entitled to commission statements for the months of May and June because he failed to stay until the end of April.

A reviewing court must give great weight to the factual determinations of the trier of fact and where there is conflict in the testimony, reasonable evaluations of credibility and reasonable inferences of fact should not be disturbed on appeal absent clear error. Cormier v. Cormier, 479 So.2d 1069 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1985).

We find no manifest error in the trial court’s determinations.

For these reasons the judgment of the trial court is affirmed at appellant’s cost.

AFFIRMED.

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

YELVERTON, Judge.

Christopher Brett Taylor filed suit against his former employer, Carlberg Supply, Inc., for alleged unpaid commissions as well as penalties and attorney’s fees. From a judgment in favor of the defendant dismissing plaintiff’s suit, plaintiff appeals. We affirm.

Plaintiff was employed by the defendant supply company from October 18, 1982, until April 18, 1984, as an outside salesman. He was paid a $1500 monthly draw to be applied against his commissions. The parties originally agreed that should plaintiff ever leave the defendant’s employ, he would not be entitled to any commissions [1117]*1117beyond the date of his leaving. However, in April 1984 Carlberg and the plaintiff entered into a different agreement. The terms of this verbal agreement make up the dispute in this case. Plaintiff testified that in the early part of April, after he announced he was leaving, he agreed to train new personnel and that in return Carlberg agreed to extend his commission statements through the months of May and June with April as the final closing month. Plaintiff argues that under the terms of this later agreement the defendant owes him commissions for May and June 1984.

Carlberg stated that he did agree to extend plaintiffs commission statements through June but that this was conditioned on plaintiff staying until the end of April. Plaintiff left on April 18 at noon. Due to this early departure Carlberg declared that he felt the subsequent agreement never became effective and he paid plaintiff only the April commission.

The trial court evidently believed Carl-berg’s version of the oral agreement, and determined that plaintiff was not entitled to commission statements for the months of May and June because he failed to stay until the end of April.

A reviewing court must give great weight to the factual determinations of the trier of fact and where there is conflict in the testimony, reasonable evaluations of credibility and reasonable inferences of fact should not be disturbed on appeal absent clear error. Cormier v. Cormier, 479 So.2d 1069 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1985).

We find no manifest error in the trial court’s determinations.

For these reasons the judgment of the trial court is affirmed at appellant’s cost.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

499 So. 2d 1116, 1986 La. App. LEXIS 7793, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylor-v-carlberg-supply-inc-lactapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack