Hazard v. Exeter Machine Works

Citations

• 34 Pa. Super. 111
• 1907 Pa. Super. LEXIS 90

Syllabus

<p>Contract — Salesmen—Commissions—Affidavit of defense.</p> <p>In an action by a salesman to recover commissions on an order secured by Mm for the defendants, the statement of claim did not set out whether the actual contract of employment was in writing or in parol, nor did it state the time when, and the conditions under which plaintiff’s compensation was to become due and payable. Annexed to the statement was a letter from the defendants to the plaintiff acknowledging the order, and after referring to the price, concluding as follows: “Understand that this price includes a commission of ten per cent to you.” The defendants filed an affidavit of defense in which they averred that about six months prior to the date of the letter, plaintiff and defendants entered into a verbal contract for the employment of the former as a salesman; that by its terms he was to receive a commission of ten per cent on sales made by him, which, however, was to be added to the defendants’ price for the goods sold, and to be payable “only when the person or parties purchasing goods had made payment in full,” until which time “no commissions should be due;” that any reduction made in selling price should work a corresponding reduction in the commission, and that in the event of any loss on such sales no commission at all should, be paid; that the defendants had not yet received full payment for the order in question, and that a loss had been sustained thereon by the defendants. Held, that the affidavit of defense was sufficient to prevent judgment.</p>